The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity

Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study

In this article, we present the results of 30 ethnographic interviews in which we asked STEM graduate and undergraduate students at a Midwest university in the United States about topics related to the culture of their research group, how group members communicate and interact, and their experience with ethical issues that arise within the laboratory. Here we focus on the culture of research laboratories and describe the key categories that emerged through analysis, including communication, community structure, governance, and collaboration that influence and shape lab culture. We also consider the critical role of the principal investigator (PI) to influence conditions in the lab that facilitate or inhibit lab culture and the subsequent effects on student feelings and behaviors, interpersonal communication, collaboration, work output, and ethics. Our findings suggest that the quality of research and the wellbeing of the lab members depend not only on purely scientific factors and routine research practices but are also dependent on the culture of the lab as it manifests in interpersonal relationships. The interviews reveal the critical role students ascribe to the PI in shaping the lab culture. Based on this study, we suggest how ethical lab cultures might be encouraged.

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.

Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review

Promoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and gray literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity. Critical appraisal of evidence was performed for studies describing interventions aimed at research integrity promotion in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of these interventions. The results of this scoping review provide a comprehensive taxonomy of factors with positive or negative impact and their relatedness to individual researchers, research performing and funding organizations, and the system of science. Moreover, the results show that efforts for fostering and promoting research integrity should be implemented at all three levels (researcher, institution, system) simultaneously to deliver greater adherence and implementation of research integrity practices. Although various educational interventions aiming at research integrity promotion exist, we were not able to conclude on the effectiveness of explored interventions due to the methodological quality issues in the studies.

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.

Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory

Scientists who manage research laboratories often face ethical dilemmas related to conflicts between their different roles, such as researcher, mentor, entrepreneur, and manager. It is not known how often uncertainty about conflicting role obligations leads scientists to engage in unethical conduct, but this probably occurs more often than many people would like to think. In this paper, we reflect on ethical decision-making in scientific laboratory management with special attention to how different roles create conflicting obligations and expectations that may produce moral uncertainty and lead to violations of research norms, especially when combined with self-interest and other factors that increase the risk of misbehavior. We also offer some suggestions and guidance for investigators and research institutions.

For the "good of the lab": Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group

To obtain some exploratory, qualitative data on ethical issues and values in managing a research laboratory, we conducted three focus groups with experienced investigators and laboratory managers. After validating the focus group transcripts for accuracy, two coders used deductive and inductive coding to develop themes from the text. Participants regarded ethics as important in managing a laboratory (or research group) for various reasons, ranging from conducting research with integrity to exhibiting leadership and promoting an ethical research climate. Participants identified many different types of ethical issues that arise in managing a research laboratory, including issues involving the management people, financial and material resources, projects, and data. An overarching ethical dilemma identified by participants was balancing the desire for productivity against apparently competing values, such as treating people fairly and promoting the wellbeing of individuals. Participants also indicated that graduate and post-graduate education and training did not prepare them to deal with the ethical, financial, interpersonal, and other issues related to managing a research laboratory, and that communication and leadership are crucial to managing a research laboratory ethically.

Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands

Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce.

Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices.

Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them.

Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.

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.

Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity.

University Teachers During the First Lockdown Due to SARS-CoV-2 in Italy: Stress, Issues and Perceptions of Misconduct

With the spread of the pandemic and the introduction of measures aimed at its containment, it is necessary to understand in specific national contexts how home quarantine has affected the psychophysical well-being of academics, and their ability to maintain integrity. To this end we constructed an online questionnaire to investigate the levels of stress, well-being, and work-life balance in relationship with living and working conditions. Moreover, the questionnaire was designed to obtain information about the perceived occurrence, increase or decrease of misconduct in research (e.g., research misconduct by colleagues) and professional relationships (e.g., misbehaviors between colleagues, from students and toward students). The questionnaire was administered online by contacting faculty at three universities in Tuscany, Italy, asking them to relate their experience during the first lockdown (March-May 2020). Faculty members were invited to complete the questionnaire by their institutional e-mail account. The final sample consisted of 581 respondents. The results showed that inadequacies of the equipment, and particularly poor internet connection, were significantly correlated with main issues reported, such as relationships with students and research activities. Female teachers primarily suffered from stressful conditions, lacked well-being, and experienced work-life imbalance. Stress levels were related to perceptions of the frequency of misconduct and of an increase in their frequency during the period of home quarantine. Female professors, when compared to their male counterparts, perceived misconduct from students as increased and more frequent in the period of quarantine. Results point to a gender issue that is likely to arise from conditions of domestic activities imbalance and that increases stress and misconduct perception.

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.

Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices

This opinion piece aims to inform future research funding programs on responsible research practices (RRP) based on three specific objectives: (1) to give a sketch of the current international discussion on responsible research practices (RRPs); (2) to give an overview of current initiatives and already obtained results regarding RRP; and (3) to give an overview of potential future needs for research on RRP. In this opinion piece, we have used seven iterative methodological steps (including literature review, ranking, and sorting exercises) to create the proposed research agenda. We identified six main themes that we believe need attention in future research: (1) responsible evaluation of research and researchers, (2) the influence of open science and transparency on RRP, (3) research on responsible mentoring, supervision, and role modeling, (4) the effect of education and training on RRP, (5) checking for reproducibility, and (6) responsible and fair peer review. These themes have in common that they address aspects of research that are mostly on the level of the scientific system, more than on the level of the individual researcher. Some current initiatives are already gathering substantial empirical evidence to start filling these gaps. We believe that with sufficient support from all relevant stakeholders, more progress can be made.

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.

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.

Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study

The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We investigated academic researchers' perceptions on this through focus group interviews. We recruited researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center to participate in focus group discussions that consisted of researchers from similar academic ranks and disciplinary fields. We asked participants to reflect on the characteristics of a responsible research climate, the barriers they perceived and which interventions they thought fruitful to improve the research climate. Discussions were recorded and transcribed at verbatim. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the focus group transcripts. We conducted 12 focus groups with 61 researchers in total. We identified fair evaluation, openness, sufficient time, integrity, trust and freedom to be mentioned as important characteristics of a responsible research climate. Main perceived barriers were lack of support, unfair evaluation policies, normalization of overwork and insufficient supervision of early career researchers. Possible interventions suggested by the participants centered around improving support, discussing expectations and improving the quality of supervision. Some of the elements of a responsible research climate identified by participants are reflected in national and international codes of conduct, such as trust and openness. Although it may seem hard to change the research climate, we believe that the realisation that the research climate is suboptimal should provide the impetus for change informed by researchers' experiences and opinions.

On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations

While attention to research integrity has been growing over the past decades, the processes of signalling and denouncing cases of research misconduct remain largely unstudied. In this article, we develop a theoretically and empirically informed understanding of the causes and consequences of reporting research misconduct in terms of power relations. We study the reporting process based on a multinational survey at eight European universities (N = 1126). Using qualitative data that witnesses of research misconduct or of questionable research practices provided, we aim to examine actors' rationales for reporting and not reporting misconduct, how they report it and the perceived consequences of reporting. In particular we study how research seniority, the temporality of work appointments, and gender could impact the likelihood of cases being reported and of reporting leading to constructive organisational changes. Our findings suggest that these aspects of power relations play a role in the reporting of research misconduct. Our analysis contributes to a better understanding of research misconduct in an academic context. Specifically, we elucidate the processes that affect researchers' ability and willingness to report research misconduct, and the likelihood of universities taking action. Based on our findings, we outline specific propositions that future research can test as well as provide recommendations for policy improvement.

Perceptions of Work-Related Stress and Ethical Misconduct Amongst Non-tenured Researchers in Italy

The relationship between stress and unethical behaviour amongst non-tenured research staff in academia is a relatively unexplored phenomenon. The research reported herein was therefore carried out with the aim of exploring the relationship(s) between stress, the socio-organisational factors which contribute to it, job satisfaction, perceptions of job instability, and the occurrence of unethical behaviour in research. 793 Italian researchers participated in the research-all of whom were working on fixed-term contracts-after being individually requested to complete an online questionnaire. The data indicate that unethical behaviours occur with alarming frequency. The stress level reported is quite high, as is the level of perceived job insecurity, both of which impact upon levels of job satisfaction. Perceived stress levels also seem to play a role in the commission of unethical behaviours, but this relationship is irrelevant when one considers the role of social and organisational factors that are known to induce it. Indeed, it seems that there are various socio-organisational determinants of stress that have an obvious direct negative influence on the commission of unethical behaviours more than the stress level per se. This research paints a worrying picture in relation to the psycho-physical state of non-tenured researchers as a result of the working conditions in which they find themselves in Italian universities.

An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity

Research integrity and misconduct have recently risen to public attention as policy issues. Concern has arisen about divergence between this policy discourse and the language and concerns of scientists. This interview study, carried out in Denmark with a cohort of highly internationalised natural scientists, explores how researchers talk about integrity and good science. It finds, first, that these scientists were largely unaware of the Danish Code of Conduct for Responsible Conduct of Research and indifferent towards the value of such codes; second, that they presented an image of good science as nuanced and thereby as difficult to manage through abstracted, principle-based codes; and third, that they repeatedly pointed to systemic issues both as triggering misconduct and as ethical problems in and of themselves. Research integrity is framed as a part of wider moves to 'responsibilise' science; understood in these terms, resistance to codes of conduct and the representation of integrity as a problem of science as a whole can be seen as a rejection of a neoliberal individualisation of responsibility.

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.

The Unethical Monetization of Business Schools (and What We Can Do About It)

We may take for granted that the business school context promotes and rewards ethical research, teaching, and service. I provide an alternative perspective, describing how the context, especially at midlevel tier schools, can offer the opportunity, motivation, and rationalization for significant (in depth and breadth) unethical monetization schemes. I list such schemes, describe possible solutions, and appeal to those handling oversight and misdeeds to act.

Medical Students' Implicit Bias and the Communication of Norms in Medical Education

ISSUE

Medical educators should consider how institutional norms influence medical students' perceptions of implicit bias. Understanding normative structures in medical education can shed light on why this influence is associated with students' resistance to implicit bias.

EVIDENCE

Extant research across diverse fields of study uncovers and theorizes layers of norms and normative systems and how they are related to ethical behavior. This review bridges the fields of communication, bioethics, and medical education, constructing an organized foundation and common language by which researchers can build effective educational interventions. First, the nature and effects of implicit bias are described. Second, the nature of normative systems in medical education is explicated. Concepts from the fields of education and communication are transferred to medical education. Third, the structure of the communication of norms in medical education is revealed, through theoretical research in bioethics and empirical medical education research.

IMPLICATIONS

Recommendations are provided for medical educators to improve activities intended to encourage reflection on implicit bias. These recommendations include reframing educational activities as endeavors in "personal" development and uncovering and transforming those normative structures that encourage resistance to implicit bias.

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.

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.

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.

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.4) and 30% (95% CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time.

Expanding the scope of responsible conduct of research instruction

We argue that responsible conduct research (RCR) instruction should be extended beyond students and trainees funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF) to include all students, trainees, faculty, and research staff involved in research. Extending the scope of RCR instruction can help institutions develop and maintain an environment that promotes ethical research conduct. Universities and scientific organizations have objected to expanding the scope of RCR instruction on the grounds that it would be a major undertaking that would require the expenditure of additional institutional resources. We argue, however, that expanding the scope of RCR instruction can be done efficiently without placing undue burdens on institutions.

Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science

The gradual crowding out of singleton and small team science by large team endeavors is challenging key features of research culture. It is therefore important for the future of scientific practice to reflect upon the individual scientist's ethical responsibilities within teams. To facilitate this reflection we show labor force trends in the US revealing a skewed growth in academic ranks and increased levels of competition for promotion within the system; we analyze teaming trends across disciplines and national borders demonstrating why it is becoming difficult to distribute credit and to avoid conflicts of interest; and we use more than a century of Nobel prize data to show how science is outgrowing its old institutions of singleton awards. Of particular concern within the large team environment is the weakening of the mentor-mentee relation, which undermines the cultivation of virtue ethics across scientific generations. These trends and emerging organizational complexities call for a universal set of behavioral norms that transcend team heterogeneity and hierarchy. To this end, our expository analysis provides a survey of ethical issues in team settings to inform science ethics education and science policy.

Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing

We analyzed 40 cases of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (FFP), comparing them to other types of wrongdoing in research (n = 40) and medicine (n = 40). Fifty-one variables were coded from an average of 29 news or investigative reports per case. Financial incentives, oversight failures, and seniority correlate significantly with more serious instances of FFP. However, most environmental variables were nearly absent from cases of FFP and none were more strongly present in cases of FFP than in other types of wrongdoing. Qualitative data suggest FFP involves thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight. We offer recommendations for education, institutional investigations, policy, and further research.

Scientific misconduct: also an issue in nursing science?

PURPOSE

Scientific misconduct (SMC) is an increasing concern in nursing science. This article discusses the prevalence of SMC, risk factors and correlates of scientific misconduct in nursing science, and highlights interventional approaches to foster good scientific conduct.

METHODS

Using the "Fostering Research Integrity in Europe" report of the European Science Foundation as a framework, we reviewed the literature in research integrity promotion.

FINDINGS

Although little empirical data exist regarding prevalence of scientific misconduct in the field of nursing science, available evidence suggests a similar prevalence as elsewhere. In studies of prospective graduate nurses, 4% to 17% admit data falsification or fabrication, while 8.8% to 26.4% report plagiarizing material. Risk factors for SMC exist at the macro, meso, and micro levels of the research system. Intervention research on preventing scientific misconduct in nursing is limited, yet findings from the wider field of medicine and allied health professions suggest that honor codes, training programs, and clearly communicated misconduct control mechanisms and misconduct consequences improve ethical behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific misconduct is a multilevel phenomenon. Interventions to decrease scientific misconduct must therefore target every level of the nursing research systems.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Scientific misconduct not only compromises scientific integrity by distorting empirical evidence, but it might endanger patients. Because nurses are involved in clinical research, raising their awareness of scientifically inappropriate behavior is essential.

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

The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) is a validated tool to facilitate promotion of research integrity and research best practices. This work uses the SORC to assess shared and individual perceptions of the research climate in universities and academic departments and relate these perceptions to desirable and undesirable research practices. An anonymous web- and mail-based survey was administered to randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows in the United States. Respondents reported their perceptions of the research climates at their universities and primary departments, and the frequency with which they engaged in desirable and undesirable research practices. More positive individual perceptions of the research climate in one's university or department were associated with higher likelihoods of desirable, and lower likelihoods of undesirable, research practices. Shared perceptions of the research climate tended to be similarly predictive of both desirable and undesirable research practices as individuals' deviations from these shared perceptions. Study results supported the central prediction that more positive SORC-measured perceptions of the research climate were associated with more positive reports of research practices. There were differences with respect to whether shared or individual climate perceptions were related to desirable or undesirable practices but the general pattern of results provide empirical evidence that the SORC is predictive of self-reported research behavior.

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.

Integrity and mental health nursing: factors to consider

Integrity is interpreted as a holistic phenomenon that incorporates personal characteristics, cognition, interpersonal awareness, and practical enactment-ultimately relating to matters society deems worthwhile. This approach enables integrity to be understood as both a personal morality and a social (group) morality. Mental health nurses embedded in a hierarchical bureaucratic organisation may act according to their personal morality and display moral strength in many situations; however, if the social morality of the group is at variance with their convictions, as individuals their capacity to be courageous and enact integrity will be tested. A likely consequence will be that those with the most cherished positive patient care values, those with a stronger adherence to moral convictions about the public good, and those with a clearly developed understanding of integrity parameters will depart, and possibly leave the profession. In this article, we provide an overview of the structural and contextual realities of nursing work within organisations and discuss how these factors can compromise whole unit integrity and seriously challenge mental health nurses' commitment to enacting integrity. In the final section of this article, broad suggestions for strengthening individual and group integrity are provided.

Understanding the Severity of Wrongdoing in Health Care Delivery and Research: Lessons Learned From a Historiometric Study of 100 Cases

BACKGROUND

Wrongdoing among physicians and researchers causes myriad problems for patients and research participants. While many articles have been published on professional wrongdoing, our literature review found no studies that examined the rich contextual details of large sets of historical cases of wrongdoing.

METHODS

We examined 100 cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research using historiometric methods, which involve the statistical description and analysis of coded historical narratives. We used maximum variation, criterion-based sampling to identify cases involving 29 kinds of wrongdoing contained in a taxonomy of wrongdoing developed for the project. We coded the presence of a variety of environmental and wrongdoer variables and rated the severity of wrongdoing found in each case. This approach enabled us to (a) produce rich descriptions of variables characterizing cases; (b) identify factors influencing the severity of wrongdoing; and (c) test the hypothesis that professional wrongdoing is a unified, relatively homogenous phenomenon such as "organizational deviance."

RESULTS

Some variables were consistently found across cases (e.g., wrongdoers were male and cases lasted more than 2 years), and some variables were consistently absent across cases (e.g., cases did not involve wrongdoers who were mistreated by institutions or penalized for doing what is right). However, we also found that some variables associated with wrongdoing in research (such as ambiguous legal and ethical norms) differ from those associated with wrongdoing in healthcare delivery (such as wrongdoers with a significant history of professional misbehavior).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier intervention from colleagues might help prevent the pattern we observed of repeated wrongdoing across multiple years. While some variables characterize the vast majority of highly publicized cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research-regardless of the kind of wrongdoing-it is important to examine and compare sets of relatively homogenous cases in order to identify factors associated with wrongdoing.

Scientific dishonesty--a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway

Background

The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.

Method

Anonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.

Results

189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.

Conclusion

Although there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.

A multicenter study of the awareness and attitudes of Egyptian faculty towards research ethics: a pilot study

The awareness and attitudes of faculty towards research ethics committees (RECs) and research ethics practices are largely unknown. Accordingly, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving various faculties (Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Dentistry) from four universities in Egypt. A large majority (> 85%) held positive attitudes towards RECs, but almost a third thought that RECs would delay research. More than half had not received prior training in research or medical ethics, but more than 90% thought that this subject matter should be taught to postgraduates. A large majority recognized the need for informed consent and confidentiality protections in research, but some held attitudes regarding certain research ethics practices that were questionable. We conclude that a curriculum in research ethics should be developed for university faculty and that further qualitative studies should explore the basis of several of the attitudes regarding practices in research ethics.

Environmental Factors Contributing to Wrongdoing in Medicine: A Criterion-Based Review of Studies and Cases

In this paper we describe our approach to understanding wrongdoing in medical research and practice, which involves the statistical analysis of coded data from a large set of published cases. We focus on understanding the environmental factors that predict the kind and the severity of wrongdoing in medicine. Through review of empirical and theoretical literature, consultation with experts, the application of criminological theory, and ongoing analysis of our first 60 cases, we hypothesize that 10 contextual features of the medical environment (including financial rewards, oversight failures, and patients belonging to vulnerable groups) may contribute to professional wrongdoing. We define each variable, examine data supporting our hypothesis, and present a brief case synopsis from our study that illustrates the potential influence of the variable. Finally, we discuss limitations of the resulting framework and directions for future research.