Academic research integrity: Exploring researchers’ perceptions of responsibilities and enablers

Responsible research in the practice of anatomy: Attributes relevant to body donors and human tissues sourced from them

Responsible Research involves setting moral examples before fellow academicians and the society as a whole. The concept of Responsible Research applies appropriately to ethical sourcing and handling of human tissues. The present study was undertaken to analyze present situation regarding implementation of attributes of Relevant Research in relation to body donors in anatomical research. A literature search of relevant, peer-reviewed, published articles was undertaken from indexed databases (Medline & PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) for this study. The following attributes of Responsible Research were identified for possible intervention: the fact that research was conducted on human tissues from body donors and details regarding ethical handling thereof may be explicitly mentioned in method section; expression of gratitude towards body donors by authors may be included in acknowledgement section; editor's and publisher's note in support of adoption of attributes of Responsible Research may be included in published research. Adherence to best practices in terms of ethical guidelines requires anatomists to embrace a responsible approach in research from an inclusive perspective. Accordingly, practice of acknowledging the body donors may be nurtured and augmented to include the anonymised dead (human tissues from unclaimed bodies and unknown source) provided the research protocol received clearance from authorities concerned with ethical scrutiny. Moreover, adoption of the practice in review articles will enhance the boundaries of Responsible Research in anatomical science. Thus, few recommendations are proposed as epilogue for effectual implementation of the notion floated in present study.

The Mentor's Role in Fostering Research Integrity Standards Among New Generations of Researchers: A Review of Empirical Studies

Promoting research integrity practices among doctoral candidates and early career researchers is important for creating a stable and healthy research environment. In addition to teaching specific technical skills and knowledge, research supervisors and mentors inevitably convey research practices, both directly and indirectly. We conducted a scoping review to summarise the role of mentors in fostering research integrity practices, mentors' responsibilities and the role that institutions have in supporting good mentorship. We searched five different databases and included studies that used an empirical methodology. After searching, a total of 1199 articles were retrieved, of which 24 were eligible for analysis. After snowballing, a total of 35 empirical articles were selected. The review discusses various themes such as the importance of good mentorship, poor mentorship practices, virtues and qualities of mentors, responsibilities and activities of mentors, group mentoring and responsibilities of the institution in supporting good mentorship. This review demonstrates the importance of mentors instilling responsible research practices and attitudes, and promoting research integrity among their mentees. Mentors are responsible for providing explicit guidance and for acting as good role models. The review highlights how poor mentorship can have a bad impact on the research climate. In addition, the review highlights the important influence that institutions can have in supporting mentorship.

Perceptions on the role of research integrity officers in French medical schools

Researchers, organizations, and governments are trying to foster research integrity. In France, the law recently permitted the appointment of research integrity officers (RIOs) in each university, to promote research integrity and handle misconducts. Since we assumed that having adequate bodies to deal with research integrity could foster research integrity, we wanted to understand how this might work more concretely. We interviewed 11 newly appointed RIOs in medical schools about how they perceive their role and cope with their responsibilities. We analyzed data following the Paillé and Muchielli's thematic analysis approach. The RIOs report a strong and interesting appropriation of concepts of research integrity, which allows them to warrant their role. Although they report that they did not seek their appointment, they show a real desire to cope with their responsibilities. They are willing to build a role which is currently poorly defined. They assert their legitimacy through their position and experience. They identify themselves with a preventive and corrective role, in an altruistic way. They emphasize their independent and collective role, congruent with other actors. The RIOs intend to be enablers of a responsible conduct of research. These results are encouraging about the potential impact of RIOs to foster research integrity.

Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study

Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees' attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees' research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors' perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors' characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors' way of mentoring depend also on supervisees' learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors' characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.

Meta-epidemiological study of publication integrity, and quality of conduct and reporting of randomized trials included in a systematic review of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively describe the quality of conduct, reporting, and publication integrity characteristics for all trials included in a large Cochrane review, comparing those published by presumed predatory publishers with those published by nonpredatory publishers.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.

STUDY SELECTION

Two hundred seventy-nine studies (25,704 participants) eligible for the recent update of the "Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain" Cochrane review were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study and manuscript characteristics, including predatory publication status and other quality and integrity characteristics were extracted along with treatment effect.

RESULTS

Nine percent of trials included were in presumed predatory publications; 12% in the period since 2010. We found frequency of other concerning characteristics to range from low (eg, plagiarism, 5%) to common (eg, lack of evidence of trial registration or protocol publication [75%]; insufficient sample size [84%]) in included studies. Studies published by presumed predatory publishers consistently had inferior conduct, reporting and publication integrity characteristics. Presumed predatory publication was associated with missing conflict of interest statement (OR 7.6, 95% CI 3.0-19.1), inadequate follow-up duration (OR 11.2, 95% CI 3.7-33.7), incomplete study methods (OR 12.1, 95% CI 2.8-52.2) and baseline reporting (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.6-11.7), and high risk of bias (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3). All (100%) presumed predatory publications were missing trial registrations (vs. 72%) and had inadequate sample sizes (vs. 82%). Trials published in presumed predatory journals did not appear to have inflated effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Predatory publishers pose a distinct challenge to the consumption and synthesis of randomized controlled trials. More work is needed in other clinical areas to understand the potential impact of randomized controlled trials published in predatory publications, and as a result, the potential impact on evidence from systematic reviews that include these studies.