» Articles » PMID: 37455853

Researchers on Research Integrity: a Survey of European and American Researchers

Abstract

Background: Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies.

Methods: We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland).  We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree.

Results: In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans.

Conclusion: To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Citing Articles

Development of a novel methodology for ascertaining scientific opinion and extent of agreement.

Vickers P, Adamo L, Alfano M, Clark C, Cresto E, Cui H PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0313541.

PMID: 39642116 PMC: 11623554. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313541.


Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture.

Brooker R, Allum N Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024; 9(1):12.

PMID: 39397013 PMC: 11472529. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-024-00151-x.


The evaluation of scientific activity for academic careers: still an open issue.

Montorsi M Updates Surg. 2024; 76(4):1127-1129.

PMID: 38914891 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01885-5.


Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study.

Sempa J, Patil R, Mathewson J, Kabelka H, Yaghmaei N, Coleman H BMJ Glob Health. 2024; 9(3).

PMID: 38519097 PMC: 10961492. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013917.


Authorship Disputes in Scholarly Biomedical Publications and Trust in the Research Institution.

Ashkenazi I, Olsha O Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2023; 14(3).

PMID: 37555719 PMC: 10393470. DOI: 10.5041/RMMJ.10503.

References
1.
Schneider J, Allum N, Andersen J, Petersen M, Madsen E, Mejlgaard N . Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research. PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0304342. PMC: 11318862. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304342. View

2.
Xie Y, Wang K, Kong Y . Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 27(4):41. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9. View

3.
Godecharle S, Nemery B, Dierickx K . Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. Lancet. 2013; 381(9872):1097-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X. View

4.
Kaiser M, Drivdal L, Hjellbrekke J, Ingierd H, Rekdal O . Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 28(1):2. PMC: 8692305. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4. View

5.
Woolston C . Postdoc survey reveals disenchantment with working life. Nature. 2020; 587(7834):505-508. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-03191-7. View