Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective

Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility

Neuroimaging plays a crucial role in understanding brain structure and function, but the lack of transparency, reproducibility, and reliability of findings is a significant obstacle for the field. To address these challenges, there are ongoing efforts to develop reporting checklists for neuroimaging studies to improve the reporting of fundamental aspects of study design and execution. In this review, we first define what we mean by a neuroimaging reporting checklist and then discuss how a reporting checklist can be developed and implemented. We consider the core values that should inform checklist design, including transparency, repeatability, data sharing, diversity, and supporting innovations. We then share experiences with currently available neuroimaging checklists. We review the motivation for creating checklists and whether checklists achieve their intended objectives, before proposing a development cycle for neuroimaging reporting checklists and describing each implementation step. We emphasize the importance of reporting checklists in enhancing the quality of data repositories and consortia, how they can support education and best practices, and how emerging computational methods, like artificial intelligence, can help checklist development and adherence. We also highlight the role that funding agencies and global collaborations can play in supporting the adoption of neuroimaging reporting checklists. We hope this review will encourage better adherence to available checklists and promote the development of new ones, and ultimately increase the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of neuroimaging research.

Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

INTRODUCTION

The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable 'publish or perish' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities.

RESULTS

In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.

Team Factors in Ethical Decision Making: A Content Analysis of Interviews with Scientists and Engineers

The ethical decision making of researchers has historically been studied from an individualistic perspective. However, researchers rarely work alone, and they typically experience ethical dilemmas in a team context. In this mixed-methods study, 67 scientists and engineers working at a public R1 (very high research activity) university in the United States responded to a survey that asked whether they had experienced or observed an ethical dilemma while working in a research team. Among these, 30 respondents agreed to be interviewed about their experiences using a think-aloud protocol. A total of 40 unique ethical incidents were collected across these interviews. Qualitative data from interview transcripts were then systematically content-analyzed by multiple independent judges to quantify the overall ethicality of team decisions as well as several team characteristics, decision processes, and situational factors. The results demonstrated that team formalistic orientation, ethical championing, and the use of ethical decision strategies were all positively related to the overall ethicality of team decisions. Additionally, the relationship between ethical championing and overall team decision ethicality was moderated by psychological safety and moral intensity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Anatomical human body donation in South Africa: Inconsistencies of informed consent

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent is critical for maintaining the ethical standards associated with the utilization of human donor bodies by tertiary education institutions. Body donation programs undertake the responsibility for procuring human donor bodies for didactic and research purposes. However, its processes require scrutiny regarding best practice guidelines and the South African National Health Act (SA-NHA) (2013). Moreover, acknowledging and addressing the current perceptions of human body donation are indispensable in bridging the gap between academia and society. This study aimed to compare informed consent documentation and procedures across South African tertiary education institutions and their affiliated human body donation programs (HBDP) in accordance with international guidelines. The findings were used to create a human body donation form template aligned to current international best practices for consideration by the South African HBDP.

METHODOLOGY

A review of information and consent forms collected from South Africa's eight HBDP was conducted. The analyses consisted of a broad evaluation of information provided, ranging from the terms-of-use for human donor bodies to the commitments made by HBDP to body-donors. The results were considered in conjunction with the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists and other recent publications on informed consent in HBDP.

RESULTS

Only two of the eight HBDP provided information and consent forms in more than one language. Most allowed donors to select how their bodies will be utilized - education, training and/or research. Some (6/8) made provisions for the next-of-kin to receive the cremains. Only one tertiary educational institution mentioned the occurrence of a memorial service in its documentation. An HBDF template was created aligned to current international best practices for presentation and possible adaption by SA HBDP.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

Human body donation forms (HBDF) requires thorough examination for the promotion and sustainability of HBDP. Effective communication by employing standardized non-technical terminology conveyed in language that is understandable and native to potential donors facilitates the deliverance of informed consent. Inconsistencies regarding the use and management of bodies catalyze the weakening perception of human body donation. Thus, this process of securing informed consent for body donation should be conducted in conjunction with public awareness campaigns and underpinned by the necessary policy and legislative reform.

Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review

Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

Background

The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?'

Aims

To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.

Results

1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.

Conclusions

There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Evaluation of primary-level credit environment, indicator system and empirical analysis: A case study of credit construction in China county and district

Townships (towns, streets) represent the foundational layer of China's administrative structure, and the quality of their credit environment is crucial for underpinning the development of a primary-level social credit system. This initiative aims to accelerate the establishment of the social credit system and cultivate a trustworthy economic and social environment. Starting from the three major fields of government, business and society, and focusing on integrity culture and credit innovation, the article proposes an innovative evaluation framework for primary-level credit environment and it can become a point of reference as a policy tool in international evaluation programs. Using clustering and the coefficient of variation methods, we quantitatively refine our indicator system, establishing a set of criteria to assess the primary-level credit environment. We incorporate hierarchical analysis, the entropy weight method, and machine learning models to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the credit environments within 24 townships (towns, streets) of Fuyang District in Hangzhou City for the year 2023. The findings underscore the need for a realistic appraisal of the current state and deficiencies of the primary-level credit environment. We advocate for the bolstering of credit development within governmental, business, and societal realms. It's imperative to leverage the normative influence of honesty and integrity culture, enhance the breadth and application of credit innovations, and thereby foster the high-quality growth of the primary-level social credit system.

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

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.

Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible conduct of research (RCR) might contain-and how it differs across disciplines (i.e. how it is conceptualized and operationalized)-is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RCR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RCR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RCR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RCR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines.

Coordinating culture change across the research landscape

Scientific integrity necessitates applying scientific methods properly, collecting and analyzing data appropriately, protecting human subjects rightly, performing studies rigorously, and communicating findings transparently. But who is responsible for upholding research integrity, mitigating misinformation, and increasing trust in science beyond individual researchers? We posit that supporting the scientific reputation requires a coordinated approach across all stakeholders: funding agencies, publishers, scholarly societies, research institutions, and journalists and media, and policy-makers.

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.

Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process

Meticulous self-evaluative practices in the offices of academic periodicals can be helpful in reducing widespread uncertainty about the quality of scholarly journals. This paper summarizes the results of the second part of a qualitative worldwide study among 258 senior editors of scholarly journals across disciplines. By means of a qualitative questionnaire, the survey investigated respondents’ perceptions of needed changes in their own editorial workflow that could, according to their beliefs, positively affect the quality of their journals. The results show that the most relevant past improvements indicated by respondents were achieved by: (a) raising the required quality criteria for manuscripts, by defining standards for desk rejection and/or shaping the desired qualities of the published material, and (b) guaranteeing a rigorous peer review process. Respondents believed that, currently, three areas have the most pressing need for amendment: ensuring higher overall quality of published articles (26% of respondents qualified this need as very high or high), increasing the overall quality of peer-review reports (23%), and raising reviewers’ awareness of the required quality standards (20%). Bivariate analysis shows that respondents who work with non-commercial publishers reported an overall greater need to improve implemented quality assessment processes. Work overload, inadequate reward systems, and a lack of time for development activities were cited by respondents as the greatest obstacles to implementing necessary amendments.

RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues

Issues related to research integrity receive increasing attention in policy discourse and beyond with most universities having introduced by now courses addressing issues of good scientific practice. While communicating expectations and regulations related to good scientific practice is essential, criticism has been raised that integrity courses do not sufficiently address discipline and career-stage specific dimensions, and often do not open up spaces for in-depth engagement. In this article, we present the card-based engagement method RESPONSE_ABILITY, which aims at supporting researchers in developing their ability to respond to challenges of good scientific practice. The method acknowledges that what counts and what does not count as acceptable practice may not be as clear-cut as imagined and that research environments matter when it comes to integrity issues. Using four sets of cards as stimulus material, participants are invited to reflect individually and collectively about questions of research integrity from different perspectives. This approach is meant to train them to negotiate in which contexts certain practices can still be regarded as acceptable and where possible transgressions might begin. RESPONSE_ABILITY can be seen as fostering the creation of an integrity culture as it invites a more reflexive engagement with ideals and realities of good practice and opens a space to address underlying value conflicts researchers may be confronted with. Concluding the article, we call for caution that addressing issues of integrity meaningfully requires striking a delicate balance between raising researchers' awareness of individual responsibilities and creating institutional environments that allow them to be response-able.

Proxyeconomics, a theory and model of proxy-based competition and cultural evolution

Competitive societal systems by necessity rely on imperfect proxy measures. For instance, profit is used to measure value to consumers, patient volumes to measure hospital performance, or the journal impact factor to measure scientific value. While there are numerous reasons why proxies will deviate from the underlying societal goals, they will nevertheless determine the selection of cultural practices and guide individual decisions. These considerations suggest that the study of proxy-based competition requires the integration of cultural evolution theory and economics or decision theory. Here, we attempt such an integration in two ways. First, we describe an agent-based simulation model, combining methods and insights from these disciplines. The model suggests that an individual intrinsic incentive can constrain a cultural evolutionary pressure, which would otherwise enforce fully proxy-oriented practices. The emergent outcome is distinct from that with either the isolated economic or evolutionary mechanism. It reflects what we term lock-in, where competitive pressure can undermine the ability of agents to pursue the shared social goal. Second, we elaborate the broader context, outlining the system-theoretic foundations as well as some philosophical and practical implications, towards a broader theory. Overall, we suggest such a theory may offer an explanatory and predictive framework for diverse subjects, ranging from scientific replicability to climate inaction, and outlining strategies for diagnosis and mitigation.