Abstract
AbstractResearch integrity (RI) is defined as adherence to ethical principles, deontological duties, and professional standards necessary for responsible conduct of scientific research. Early training on RI, especially for early-career researchers, could be useful to help develop good standards of conduct and prevent research misconduct (RM).The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a training course on RI, by mapping the attitudes of early-career researchers on this topic through a questionnaire built upon the revised version of the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire and administered to all participants at the beginning and at the end of the course.Results show that after the course, participants reporting a high understanding of the rules and procedures related to RM significantly increased (pre-course: 38.5%, post-course: 61.5%), together with the percentage of those reporting a lack of awareness on the extent of misconduct (pre-course: 46.2%, post-course: 69.2%), and of those who believe that the lack of research ethics consultation services strongly affects RM (pre-course: 15.4%, post-course: 61.5%). Early-career researchers agree on the importance to share with peers and superiors any ethical concern that may arise in research, and to create a work environment that fosters RI awareness.As a whole, results suggest the effectiveness of the course. Institutions should introduce RI training for early-career researchers, together with research methodology, integrity and ethics consultation services to support them. Senior scientists should promote RI into their research practices, and should stimulate engagement in peer-to-peer dialogue to develop good practices based on RI principles.
Funder
Università degli Studi dell'Insubria
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Philosophy,Sociology and Political Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Education
Reference25 articles.
1. Abdi, S. (2021). ‘Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students?’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2021 8:1, 8(1), pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00908-5.
2. ALLEA - All European Academies (2023). Il codice di condotta europeo per l’integrità della ricerca. Berlin. https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC.
3. Anderson, M. S., et al. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0B013E31812F764C.
4. Broome, M. E. (2007). ‘The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire—Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and Psychometric Testing’, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989620500440253 , 12(4), pp. 263–280.
5. Commission on Research Integrity (1995). Integrity and Misconduct in Research. Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/report_commission.pdf (Accessed: 11 February 2023).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献