ArticlePloS one2015
Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production: Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics.Journal of business ethics : JBE · 2022Article
- Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
- Trust and professionalism in science: medical codes as a model for scientific negligence?BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Interventions for Organizational Climate and Culture in Academia: A Scoping Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Perceptions of Work-Related Stress and Ethical Misconduct Amongst Non-tenured Researchers in Italy.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Perceptions of Ethical Climate and Research Pressures in Different Faculties of a University: Cross-Sectional Study at the University of Split, Croatia.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- From a variety of ethics to the integrity and congruence of research on biodiversity conservation.Asian bioethics review · 2018Article
- Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of 'Scientific Integrity'.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professional codes of ethics are social contracts among members of a professional group, which aim to instigate, encourage and nurture ethical behaviour and prevent professional misconduct, including research and publication. Despite the existence of codes of ethics, research misconduct remains a serious problem. A survey of codes of ethics from 795 professional organizations from the Illinois Institute of Technology's Codes of Ethics Collection showed that 182 of them (23%) used research integrity and research ethics terminology in their codes, with differences across disciplines: while the terminology was common in professional organizations in social sciences (82%), mental health (71%), sciences (61%), other organizations had no statements (construction trades, fraternal social organizations, real estate) or a few of them (management, media, engineering). A subsample of 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terminology than the whole sample: an average of 10.4% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 research integrity/ethics terms compared to 3.3% (95% CI = 2.1-4.6%), respectively (P<0.001). Overall, 62% of all statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. Professional organizations should define research integrity and research ethics issues in their ethics codes and collaborate within and across disciplines to adequately address responsible conduct of research and meet contemporary needs of their communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.