Erratum to: Parenting Programs for the Prevention of Child Physical Abuse Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kristina Vlahovicova,G. Melendez-Torres,Patty Leijten,W. Knerr,F. Gardner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-017-0238-1

IF: 7.41

2017-05-05

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Spontaneous sacro-iliac obliteration in patients with tuberculosis.

A. S. Isaacson,W. Whitehouse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-194931020-00008

1949-04-01

Abstract:
Russell Brain, DM, FRCP, FRS, 1895-1966.

R. Henson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHNEUR.1967.00470230111015

1967-05-01

Archives of Neurology

Abstract:THE Right Honorable Lord Russell Brain died at his home in London on Dec 29. By his death British medicine has lost one of its most renowned figures and British neurology its acknowledged leader. Brain was a celebrated physician with a worldwide reputation in his chosen speciality, but he achieved distinction in many fields, for he was a man of many interests and great intellectual powers. At the time of his death, his powers were undiminished, and he was still enlarging his experience, engaging in new endeavors, and using his fine mind in the service of his country and profession. Walter Russell Brain was the son of a Reading solicitor, and gave the first hint of his quality when he won an open scholarship to Mill Hill School. Although originally destined for the law, he read history when he went up to New College, Oxford, in 1914. After war service
Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review

Rea Ščepanović,Krishma Labib,Ivan Buljan,Joeri Tijdink,Ana Marušić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1

IF: 3.777

2021-01-27

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Abstract Research integrity (RI) is a continuously developing concept, and increasing emphasis is put on creating RI promotion practices. This study aimed to map the existing RI guidance documents at research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs). A search of bibliographic databases and grey literature sources was performed, and retrieved documents were screened for eligibility. The search of bibliographical databases and reference lists of selected articles identified a total of 92 documents while the search of grey literature sources identified 118 documents for analysis. The retrieved documents were analysed based on their geographical origin, research field and organisational origin (RPO or RFO) of RI practices, types of guidance presented in them, and target groups to which RI practices are directed. Most of the identified practices were developed for research in general, and are applicable to all research fields (n = 117) and medical sciences (n = 78). They were mostly written in the form of guidelines (n = 136) and targeted researchers (n = 167). A comprehensive search of the existing RI promotion practices showed that initiatives mostly come from RPOs while only a few RI practices originate from RFOs. This study showed that more RI guidance documents are needed for natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities since only a small number of documents was developed specifically for these research fields. The explored documents and the gaps in knowledge identified in this study can be used for further development of RI promotion practices in RPOs and RFOs.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality

Jolene Y L Chua,Celine S L Lee,Kwee P Yeo,Yusuf Ali,Chin L Lim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00824-6

2022-08-24

Abstract:Background: Research and academic institutions use various delivery channels to deliver Research Integrity (RI) education in their communities. Yet there is no consensus on the best delivery method and the effectiveness of these channels in inculcating a positive RI culture varies across institutions. Hence, this study aimed to understand the preferences of the research community in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Methods: An online survey was conducted on NTU research community to understand their experience with, and preference for each RI education mode offered in NTU. The RI education modes surveyed in the general ranking question are Data Management Plan (DMP) workshops, Epigeum e-Learning, Compass e-newsletter (email), and NTU policy on Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research. There were 242 responses, comprising 50% research students, 32.2% research staff and 17.8% faculty members. Non-parametric statistical techniques were used to analyse preferences across different RI education modes and within sub-groups (i.e., fields, age, native language, roles in research community). Results: More than 92% of respondents subscribed to the importance of RI education, but with different preferences for education modes. With respect to RI education in NTU, Compass e-newsletters were ranked the lowest (p < 0.05). Most felt that they were too wordy and unengaging, making it difficult to absorb information. Similarly, Epigeum e-Learning (p < 0.05) and 'policy' (p < 0.05) were found to be too lengthy in presentation. The compulsory NTU RI education modes (Epigeum e-learning and 'policy') enjoyed higher participation rates of 70-80% compared with 32-37% for the self-regulated modes (DMP workshop and e-newsletter). This suggests that regulatory mechanisms are still necessary to promote participation in RI education, and thus, core RI education content should be made compulsory in research/academic institutions. Although Epigeum is a compulsory course, some may not have participated in the programme due to technical issues or they might have forgotten to participate in the programme within the permissible timeframe. For all four RI education modes in NTU, the lack of awareness was among the top cited reasons for not participating. Conclusions: Most NTU researchers perceived RI education positively although they may have reservations for some approaches. Conversely, e-Learning is favored over all the other modes except for the mode of Policy. Findings from this study are useful for improving the design of RI education strategies to be more appealing to the research community by enhancing user experience in terms of user-friendliness, relevance to specialisation, providing concise information and better presentation of materials For institutions with similar modes of RI education as NTU, these results may be relevant in improving participation rates and presentation of RI education modes, such as the use of infographics and more concise information.
A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials

Louise Dudley,Carrol Gamble,Alison Allam,Philip Bell,Deborah Buck,Heather Goodare,Bec Hanley,Jennifer Preston,Alison Walker,Paula Williamson,Bridget Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4

IF: 2.728

2015-04-27

Trials

Abstract:BackgroundTraining in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers’ and PPI contributors’ accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties.MethodsWe used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method.ResultsWe interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction ‘conversations’ to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding ‘the right’ contributor was more important than accessing ‘the right’ training.ConclusionsWhile informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers’ and contributors’ needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.

medicine, research & experimental
Promoting research integrity in funding: Co-creating guidelines for research funding organizations

Roshni Jegan,Krishma Labib,Kris Dierickx,Noémie Aubert Bonn,Joeri Tijdink,Ana Marušić,Daniel Pizzolato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2388232

2024-08-28

Abstract:Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.
Fostering Research Integrity in African Higher Education Institutions

Patrobers Simiyu,Elutunji Buraimoh,Innocent Davidson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51415/ajims.v3i1.980

2021-01-01

African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies

Abstract:African higher education institutions (HEIs) have been considering changing in the last twenty years. The realisation of knowledge synthesis as a critical driver for social-economic development, has led to countries promoting research in universities and related institutions of higher learning towards a knowledge-based economy. However, the increasing emphasis on HEIs' research productivity has raised questions of whether or not the parties involved in funding, conception, conducting, and review/reporting are upholding responsible conduct of research (RCR). Equally, concerns on adequate rules, regulations, and guidelines to foster research integrity (RI) amongst the research professionals prevail. In this paper, an in-depth understanding of the RI concept, and the strategies that the research fraternity in the African HEIs and policymakers use to foster RCR, are illuminated to address gaps that need to be filled. This is a new dawn for HEIs in Africa to strengthen their knowledge base by applying the best practices that are founded on high levels of RI to meaningfully inform, influence, and impact Africa's current and future development. This study provided a detailed literature investigation of the occurrences of irresponsible research conduct in Africa's HEIs, existing efforts to mitigate them, and the path forward to foster RCR. Unfortunately, Africa's HEIs have ineffective policies and structures in place to promote RI and research misconduct.
Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts

Marie-Josée Drolet,Eugénie Rose-Derouin,Julie-Claude Leblanc,Mélanie Ruest,Bryn Williams-Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3

2022-08-13

Journal of Academic Ethics

Abstract:In the context of academic research, a diversity of ethical issues, conditioned by the different roles of members within these institutions, arise. Previous studies on this topic addressed mainly the perceptions of researchers. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the transversal ethical issues from a wider spectrum, including other members of academic institutions as the research ethics board (REB) members, and the research ethics experts. The present study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to document the ethical issues experienced by a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts. Data collection involved socio-demographic questionnaires and individual semi-structured interviews. Following the triangulation of different perspectives (researchers, REB members and ethics experts), emerging ethical issues were synthesized in ten units of meaning: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. This study highlighted several problematic elements that can support the identification of future solutions to resolve transversal ethical issues in research that affect the heterogeneous members of the academic community.
Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Snežana B. Krstić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z

IF: 3.777

2014-10-26

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:AbstractUnavailability of published data and studies focused on young researchers in Europe and research integrity issues reveals that clear understanding and stance on this subject within European area is lacking. Our study provides information on attitudes and experiences of European researchers at early career stages (doctoral and postdoctoral level), based on a limited sample of respondents (n = 27). The study provides both quantitative and qualitative results for the examined issues. The data suggest that awareness and interest of the younger researchers surveyed in research integrity issues is high, however, it is often based on self-initiatives, with many of the respondents not having adequate training or any possibility to obtain it. Our attitude survey conducted within the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers indicates that only 22 % of respondents had an opportunity to obtain relevant training (significantly less than in a study conducted in the U.S.), and that only one third believed that institutions and supervisors regularly paid attention to it. Further, we noted certain differences between disciplines. The study also reveals that many younger researchers felt they faced problems due to the misconduct of their senior colleagues and the existing institutional culture. The results of the study indicate a need for better prevention mechanisms, training and raising awareness activities. Preferably, junior researchers should be given an active role in shaping the integrity culture. It should be noted that the presented results should be considered in the context of the limitations stemming from the small-scale survey. This paper encourages further research activities on research integrity practices to provide stronger evidence on the attitudes and experiences of young researchers in Europe and other parts of the world.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Research ethics training, challenges, and suggested improvements across Europe: Radiography research ethics standards for Europe (RRESFE)

S Bockhold,J McNulty,E Abdurakman,P Bezzina,N Drey,A England,D Flinton,R Khine,M McEntee,N Mekiš,H Precht,L Rainford,C Sá Dos Reis,A Santos,V Syrgiamiotis,S Willis,J Woodley,C Beardmore,R Harris,T O'Regan,C Malamateniou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2022.07.004

Abstract:Introduction: The Radiography Research Ethics Standards for Europe (RRESFE) project aimed to provide a cross-sectional view of the current state of radiography research ethics across Europe. This included investigating education and training in research ethics, and identifying the key challenges and potential improvements associated with using existing research ethics frameworks. Methods: This cross-sectional online survey targeting radiography researchers in Europe was conducted between April 26 and July 12, 2021. Descriptive and analytical statistics were used to identify research ethics education and training trends. Content analysis of qualitative responses was employed to identify significant challenges and proposed improvements in research ethics frameworks of practice. Results: There were 232 responses received across 33 European countries. Most (n = 132; 57%) respondents had received some research ethics training; however, fewer participants had received training on safeguarding vulnerable patients (n = 72; 38%), diversity and inclusivity (n = 62; 33%), or research with healthy volunteers (n = 60; 32%). Training was associated with a greater perceived importance of the need for research ethics review (p = 0.031) and with the establishment of EQF Level 6 training (p = 0.038). The proportion of formally trained researchers also varied by region (p = <0.001). Time-to-ethics-approval was noted as the biggest challenge for professionals making research ethics applications. Conclusion: Early and universal integration of research-oriented teaching within the radiography education framework which emphasises research ethics is recommended. Additionally, study findings suggest research ethics committee application and approval processes could be further simplified and streamlined. Implications for practice: The survey contributes to a growing body of knowledge surrounding the importance of education and training in research ethics for assuring a high standard of research outputs in Radiography and has identified hurdles to obtaining research ethics approval for further investigation and address.
Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Andrea Reyes Elizondo,Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3

2024-04-03

Abstract:Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.
The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study

Carol Brown,Jane Spiro,Sarah Quinton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3654

2020-07-13

British Educational Research Journal

Abstract:Ethics committees have an important role to play in ensuring ethical standards (e.g. BERA, ESRC, RCUK recommendations) are met by educational researchers. Balancing obligations to participants, society, institutions and the researchers themselves is not, however, easy. Researchers often experience the ethics committee as unsympathetic to their research endeavour, whilst ethics committees find some research approaches do not make ethical implications sufficiently explicit. This potential for misunderstanding is evident in the literature, but studies investigating how participants perceive this relationship are missing. This research comprises a novel empirical study which explores researcher perceptions of research ethics committees. Fifty‐five participants in higher education departments of education responded to an online survey. Open and closed‐ended questions were used to collect data on roles, methodological stance, experiences of the research ethics committee, perceived tensions and examples of good practice. The results indicated that contemporary educational researchers regard research ethics committees as friends when researcher and reviewer are transparently engaged in a shared endeavour. When this shared endeavour breaks down, for a variety of reasons—including apparently unreasonable demands or mutual misunderstanding—the research ethics committees can become foes. The difference between foe and friend lies in the quality of communication, clear systems and a culture of respectful mutual learning. The contributions of this study have practical implications for the ways that education researchers and research ethics committees relate to one another within university settings, both to alleviate areas of tension and to arrive at a shared understanding which will enable best ethical research practice.

education & educational research
How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations

Adam Kamenetzky,Saba Hinrichs-Krapels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0515-1

2020-01-20

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:Abstract Background Public research funding agencies and research organisations are increasingly accountable for the wider impacts of the research they support. While research impact assessment (RIA) frameworks and tools exist, little is known and shared of how these organisations implement RIA activities in practice. Methods We conducted a review of academic literature to search for research organisations’ published experiences of RIAs. We followed this with semi-structured interviews from a convenience sample ( n = 7) of representatives of four research organisations deploying strategies to support and assess research impact. Results We found only five studies reporting empirical evidence on how research organisations put RIA principles into practice. From our interviews, we observed a disconnect between published RIA frameworks and tools, and the realities of organisational practices, which tended not to be reported. We observed varying maturity and readiness with respect to organisations’ structural set ups for conducting RIAs, particularly relating to leadership, skills for evaluation and automating RIA data collection. Key processes for RIA included efforts to engage researcher communities to articulate and plan for impact, using a diversity of methods, frameworks and indicators, and supporting a learning approach. We observed outcomes of RIAs as having supported a dialogue to orient research to impact, underpinned shared learning from analyses of research, and provided evidence of the value of research in different domains and to different audiences. Conclusions Putting RIA principles and frameworks into practice is still in early stages for research organisations. We recommend that organisations (1) get set up by considering upfront the resources, time and leadership required to embed impact strategies throughout the organisation and wider research ‘ecosystem’, and develop methodical approaches to assessing impact; (2) work together by engaging researcher communities and wider stakeholders as a core part of impact pathway planning and subsequent assessment; and (3) recognise the benefits that RIA can bring about as a means to improve mutual understanding of the research process between different actors with an interest in research.

health policy & services
How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community

Ivan Buljan,Lana Barać,Ana Marušić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162

2018-04-22

Accountability in Research

Abstract:The aim of our study has been to use a qualitative approach to explore the potential motivations and drivers for unethical behaviors in biomedicine and determine the role of institutions regarding those issues in a small scientific community setting. Three focus groups were held---two with doctoral students and one with active senior researchers. Purposive sampling was used to reach participants at different stages of their scientific careers. Participants in all three focus groups were asked the same questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of ethical/unethical scientists, ethical climate, role, and responsibility of institutions; they were also asked to suggest ways to improve research integrity. The data analysis included coding of the transcripts, categorization of the initial codes, and identification of themes and patterns. Three main topics were derived from the focus groups discussions. The first included different forms of unethical behaviors including increasing research "waste," non-publication of negative results, authorship manipulation, data manipulation, and repression of collaborators. The second addressed the factors influencing unethical behavior, both external and internal, to the researchers. Two different definitions of ethics in science emerged; one from the categorical perspective and the other from the dimensional perspective. The third topic involved possible routes for improvement, one from within the institution through the research integrity education, research integrity bodies, and quality control, and the other from outside the institution through external supervision of institutions. Based on the results of our study, research misconduct in a small scientific community is perceived to be the consequence of the interaction of several social and psychological factors, both general and specific, for small research communities. Possible improvements should be systematic, aiming both for improvements in work environment and personal awareness in research ethics, and the implementation of those changes should be institutional responsibility.
Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Anna Catharina V. Armond,Kelly D. Cobey,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367

IF: 7.407

2024-04-20

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability, and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past two decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
The Development of a Literacy-Based Research Integrity Assessment Framework for Graduate Students in Taiwan

Chien Chou,Yuan-Hsuan Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00401-5

2022-12-12

Abstract:Graduate education is a critical period in shaping and fostering graduate students' awareness about the importance of responsible conduct of research and knowledge and skills in doing good science. However, there is a lack of a standard curriculum and assessment framework for graduate students in Taiwan. The aim of this study was to develop a literacy-based research integrity (RI) assessment framework, including five core RI areas: (1) basic concepts in RI, (2) RI considerations in the research procedure, (3) research ethics and research subject protection, (4) publication and authorship, and (5) conflict of interest. The five areas were derived through a comprehensive review of major topics and areas covered in existing research integrity education and training programs and were rated by RI experts with adequate content validity. Test items on the five core areas were developed across three literacy levels: remembering and understanding, applying and analyzing, and evaluating and creating. Seven thousand and eighty-seven graduate-level trainees took an 18-unit RI course covering the five RI areas. Upon finishing the course, trainees completed a computer-based RI assessment randomly selected from 26 RI testing booklets. The design of test items followed the mastery-oriented assessment principles to promote trainees' learning of RI with adaptive assessment feedback. Results showed that the items in the RI assessment had adequate discrimination and low difficulty level. Thus, the RI assessment can be used to assess a range of trainees' RI literacy and can provide the most information in identifying trainees in need of more instruction or alternative training. The low guessing parameters also indicated the online RI assessment had an appropriate control of test exposure and cheating prevention. Higher education authorities can use this framework to assess graduate students' RI literacy based on a standard curriculum and prepare them for conversations about the responsible conduct of research for RI culture-building.
Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods

E. Michelle Todd,Brett S. Torrence,Logan L. Watts,Tyler J. Mulhearn,Shane Connelly,Michael D. Mumford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1301210

2017-03-01

Accountability in Research

Abstract:In order to delineate best practices for courses on research ethics, the goal of the present effort was to identify themes related to instructional methods reflected in effective research ethics and responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses. By utilizing a qualitative review, four themes relevant to instructional methods were identified in effective research ethics courses: active participation, case-based activities, a combination of individual and group approaches, and a small number of instructional methods. Three instructional method themes associated with less effective courses were also identified: passive learning, a group-based approach, and a large number of instructional methods. Key characteristics of each theme, along with example courses relative to each theme, are described. Additionally, implications regarding these instructional method themes and recommendations for best practices in research ethics courses are discussed.
Researchers Training Researchers: Ethics Training in Quantitative Applied Linguistics

Margaret Wood,Scott Sterling,Tove Larsson,Luke Plonsky,Merja Kytö,Kate Yaw

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3323

IF: 3.41

2024-05-08

TESOL Quarterly

Abstract:This forum piece reports on a brief survey of current quantitative research ethics training materials in Applied Linguistics (AL). This survey was conducted as a step towards an increased understanding of the ways in which we, as a field, train students and researchers to conduct quantitative research ethically. The survey was carried out in the process of creating research ethics training materials as part of a grant‐funded project related to questionable research practices (QRPs). Through manual and computer‐assisted searches in twenty‐four textbooks and twenty‐three course syllabi from the past five years, three themes emerged: (1) research ethics is most often conceptualized in terms of IRB‐related topics, (2) when 'ethical gray‐zone' issues are mentioned, the focus is primarily on methodological transparency, data sharing/open science, and selecting the appropriate research design and statistical tests, and (3) materials tend to address the topic of research ethics in a single section or chapter, or in a single day or week of a course. Against this background, we provide three recommendations that our field can implement to provide more robust and thorough research ethics training for students and researchers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics: (1) expand our conceptualization of research ethics to include ethical gray‐zone issues, (2) be thorough and explicit in our discussion of ethical issues related to research decisions, and (3) incorporate research ethics as a recurring theme throughout textbooks and courses.

education & educational research,linguistics
Building capacity in quantitative research and data storytelling to enhance knowledge translation: a training curriculum for peer researchers

Jason M. Lo Hog Tian,James R. Watson,Megan Deyman,Billy Tran,Paul Kerber,Kajiko Nanami,Deborah Norris,Kim Samson,Lynne Cioppa,Michael Murphy,A. Mcgee,Monisola Ajiboye,Lori A. Chambers,Catherine Worthington and Sean B. Rourke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00390-6

2022-12-07

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Many community-based HIV research studies incorporate principles of greater involvement and meaningful engagement of people living with HIV (GIPA/MEPA) by training people with HIV as peer researchers. Unfortunately, there are still some aspects of research (e.g., quantitative data analysis and interpretation) where many projects fall short in realizing GIPA/MEPA principles. To address these gaps, we developed an eight-week training course that aimed to build the capacity of peer researchers around the understanding and interpretation of quantitative data and incorporating lived experience to increase the impact of the knowledge transfer and exchange phase of a study.

multidisciplinary sciences
Perceptions of Students of Education Sciences on Research Ethics and (Re)Formation of the University Curriculum

Dorin Opriş

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070701

2024-06-28

Education Sciences

Abstract:The study investigates perceptions of students of education sciences in Romania concerning issues related to research ethics, starting from recent opinions that consider the lack of adequate training in this field as a threat to higher education. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better knowledge of the training stage of which Bachelor, Master and doctorate students are undertaking. Respondents were invited to take part in a survey that included items that asked their opinion on the place of research ethics in the university curriculum, the need for a support person on research ethics issues, the importance of respecting research ethics for involvement in a research project, and the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics. The results show that students' perception of the importance of research ethics positively changes with the level of studies. Doctoral students appreciate the support of an ethics advisor and significantly value the ethics component of a research project. Compliance with university ethics norms and compliance with research ethics is statistically significant in two of the three analyzed situations. The research shows the need for reconsideration at the institutional level to identify new training pathways in student research ethics.

Erratum to: Parenting Programs for the Prevention of Child Physical Abuse Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Spontaneous sacro-iliac obliteration in patients with tuberculosis.

Russell Brain, DM, FRCP, FRS, 1895-1966.

Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review

Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality

A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials

Promoting research integrity in funding: Co-creating guidelines for research funding organizations

Fostering Research Integrity in African Higher Education Institutions

Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts

Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Research ethics training, challenges, and suggested improvements across Europe: Radiography research ethics standards for Europe (RRESFE)

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study

How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations

How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

The Development of a Literacy-Based Research Integrity Assessment Framework for Graduate Students in Taiwan

Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods

Researchers Training Researchers: Ethics Training in Quantitative Applied Linguistics

Building capacity in quantitative research and data storytelling to enhance knowledge translation: a training curriculum for peer researchers

Perceptions of Students of Education Sciences on Research Ethics and (Re)Formation of the University Curriculum