Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education

With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender1 across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well.2 However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction.

Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study

Authorship can be a source of tension on research teams, in academic/industry collaborations, and between mentors/mentees. Authorship misconduct is prevalent among biomedical researchers, and disputes about authorship can generate tensions that have the potential to disrupt professional relationships and damage careers. Early-career researchers may experience particular challenges navigating authorship both because of inexperience and power differentials; in effect, they lack the language and confidence to have these conversations and may feel unwilling to challenge the status quo. The authors implemented an Authorship Agreement for use when collaborating on a manuscript and hypothesized that using this agreement would reduce authorship tensions and speed time to manuscript submission by helping early-career investigators manage authorship conversations more effectively. The authors surveyed trainees (n = 65) on the prevalence of authorship-related tensions and compared the results from the first survey in 2017 to the final survey in 2020. The decrease in tensions around meeting deadlines was significant (z = 2.59, p = 0.010). The authors believe the effect of an Authorship Agreement on authorship-related tensions has not previously been investigated. This work extends what is known about the prevalence of commonly cited authorship tensions, and provides evidence of the effectiveness of steps that can be taken to alleviate them.

Faculty Members' Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Anti-Plagiarism Detection Tools: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate predictors of the use of anti-plagiarism detection tools (APTs) in higher education institutions.

METHODS

An online survey based on the theory of planned behavior was sent to members of science faculties in Jordan. Multivariate Logistic regression was conducted to determine predictors of previous use of APTs, and multivariate linear regression to predict future intentions.

RESULTS

A total of 173 faculty members completed the survey, with 78.13% indicating previous APTs use. Turnitin® (43%) and Ithenticate® (32.8%) were the most commonly used APTs. These tools were mainly used to evaluate papers before sending them to journals (65.5%) and to detect plagiarism in theses/dissertations (50.4%). Predictors of previous use were academic rank (p  =  0.02) and perceived understanding of APT use (p  =  0.043). Intentions for future use were predicted by attitudes (p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (p  =  0.036).

CONCLUSION

The theory of planned behavior successfully predicted intentions to use APTs. The use of APTs should be encouraged to all faculty members and students.

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

BACKGROUND

Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?

METHODS

With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.

RESULTS

Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.