Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement

Forsberg, Ellen-Marie; Anthun, Frank O.; Bailey, Sharon A.; Birchley, Giles; Bout, Henriette; Casonato, Carlo; Fuster, Gloria González; Heinrichs, Bert; Horbach, Serge P. J. M.; Jacobsen, Ingrid Skjæggestad; Janssen, J.J.M.; Kaiser, Matthias; Lerouge, Inge; Meulen, Barend van der; Rijcke, Sarah de; Saretzki, Thomas; Sutrop, Margit; Tazewell, Marta; Varantola, Krista; Vie, Knut Jørgen; Zwart, Hub; Zöller, Mira

doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4

Cited by 72 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Science is a globally distributed network, and as such, is difficult to study. The estimates reported in this study were limited to American psychologists, though these issues are not restricted solely to the United States (Agnoli et al, 2017;Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016;Forsberg et al, 2018). Future studies estimating the prevalence of QRP use in other countries or geographic areas will be an important next step to better understanding the global size of this population, as well as investigating the use of QRPs in other scientific fields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Future studies estimating the prevalence of QRP use in other countries or geographic areas will be an important next step to better understanding the global size of this population, as well as investigating the use of QRPs in other scientific fields. Some of this work has already started through the Horizon 2020 framework in the European Union (Forsberg et al, 2018), though more innovative work like this will be required to better understand the full scope of the problems faced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientist as Subject: How Researcher Behaviors Influence Psychological Knowledge

Fox¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interacting with the published literature ("knowledge consumption") and publishing new scientific findings ("knowledge production") are two key moments in the scientist's search for truth, and bias in either of these can distort what is known about an area of research. This dissertation details three studies conducted on researchers in psychology that together provide evidence of scientists' behaviors influencing these key moments of knowledge production and knowledge consumption. Methods:Psychologists were recruited to participate in each study (N = 215 and N = 587).Studies used custom web tools and social network methods to collect unique datasets on psychologists' social networks and how they approach the scientific literature. The analytic approach differed based on each study. For studies on knowledge consumption, Gini coefficients and measures of unpredictability were calculated to better understand the dynamics of the published literature. For studies on knowledge production, the generalized network scale up method was used to estimate the size of the population of iii current users of questionable research practices, and regression was used to better understand the relationship between attitudes and stigma against certain psychologists. Results:Chapter 1: Overview and IntroductionHistorians don't want to write a history of historians. They are quite happy to plunge endlessly into limitless historical detail. But they themselves don't want to be counted as part of the limitless historical detail. They don't want to be part of the historical order. It's as if doctors didn't want to fall ill and die. Charles Péguy, L'Argent, suiteFrench sociologist Pierre Bourdieu starts his 1988 book, Homo Academicus, with the above quote from poet and essayist Charles Péguy, commenting on the preference of the researcher to stand apart from what they research. Bourdieu's theoretical investigation of the academic world at a time of unrest and change (the 1968 University of Paris protests) presents to the reader the academy as an object for study. In doing so, Bourdieu brings the researcher into full display and argues that the authority and objectivity central to an academic's success is not inherent to the individual, but the result of the academic's position in the power structures of academia (Bourdieu, 1988).In writing his book, Bourdieu aimed to "exoticize the domestic", asking scholars to critically engage with the academic world they inhabit and to question what drives their research questions, methods, and conclusions. Was objective curiosity the sole driver of inquiry, or was research shaped by the influences of academic power and conformity? In order to promote radical change in academic standards and research, Bourdieu asked his peers to honestly reflect on their position of power, the production and consumption of knowledge, and their role in the validation of that knowledge (Forte, 2015).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientist as Subject: How Researcher Behaviors Influence Psychological Knowledge

Fox¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fanelli et al 2015;Yang 2013;Stitzel et al 2018). Similarly, the literature has outlined several potential causes of misbehaviour in science, including individual researchers' personality traits ; the organisational context in which these researchers operate (Anderson et al 2007;Forsberg et al 2018); and more systemic causes, such as competitive research funding and 'publish or perish' pressures (Fanelli et al 2017;Sarewitz 2016).…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Keywords Research integrity · Research misconduct · Whistleblowing · Power relations · OrganisationsSerge P. J. M. Horbach and Eric Breit have contributed equally to this article. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (https ://doi.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, instruments which do attempt to communicate such definitions (i.e. COCs) are often seen as containing too many abstract and formal elements to be practically useful, and too general for and external to daily practices (Forsberg et al 2018).…”

Section: Challenges Involved In the Communication Of The Norms Of Goomentioning

confidence: 99%

Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much has been said about the need for improving the current definitions of scientific authorship, but an aspect that is often overlooked is how to formulate and communicate these definitions to ensure that they are comprehensible and useful for researchers, notably researchers active in international research consortia. In light of a rapid increase in international collaborations within natural sciences, this article uses authorship of this branch of sciences as an example and provides suggestions to improve the comprehensibility of the definitions of authorship in natural sciences. It assesses whether the definition of authorship provided by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity can deal with current issues and problems of scientific authorship. Notably, problems that are experienced in project groups with researchers coming from multiple countries. Using theories developed by Jürgen Habermas and Robert Merton, a normative framework is developed to articulate ethical authorship in natural sciences. Accordingly, enriching the current definition of authorship with normative elements and using discipline-specific metaphors to communicate them are introduced as possible ways of improving the comprehensibility of the definition of authorship in international environments. Finally, this article provides a proposal to be considered in the future revisions of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

show abstract

Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

Scientist as Subject: How Researcher Behaviors Influence Psychological Knowledge

Scientist as Subject: How Researcher Behaviors Influence Psychological Knowledge

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

Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About