ArticleAccountability in research2019
Leading for research excellence and integrity: A qualitative investigation of the relationship-building practices of exemplary principal investigators.
Article in Accountability in research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Experiences on the implementation and maintenance of the Canadian Disability Participation Project: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating and supporting leadership, management, and mentoring: a framework for catalyzing responsible research and healthy research environments.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Review
- Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Considerations for legal, ethical, and effective practice in dementia research.Brain communications · 2024Review
- Integrated knowledge translation guidelines for trainees in health research: an environmental scan.Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
- Article
- Principal Investigators' Priorities and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators When Making Decisions About Conducting Essential Research in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Science and engineering ethics · 2023Article
- Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approach in trainee-led research: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- How to Navigate Trainee-Mentor Relationships and Interpersonal Dynamics in the Lab.Current protocols · 2021Article
- How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students.Current protocols · 2021Article
- Leading the people and leading the work: Practical considerations for ethical research.Translational issues in psychological science · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted semi-structured, telephone interviews with 52 federally funded researchers nominated as exemplars for their integrity and professional conduct, and their scientific achievements. The aim was to identify the practices they report utilizing to build respectful relationships in their teams. We found four practices, holding meetings, providing supervision and guidance, encouraging shared ownership, and expressing values, which were also important to performing high-quality, compliant research, were essential to fostering relationships. The most common practice described for building relationships was actively and deliberately cultivating a positive team environment. Additionally, exemplars described the need to lead by example, tailor their approach to the needs of individuals, address interpersonal conflict, and hire team members cautiously. We also identified practices the exemplars reported as important to managing the demands of their work and found that encouraging shared ownership and tailoring to individuals supported this goal. Additional strategies related to prioritization and planning, seeking advice, engaging in self-care, and managing emotional reactions. Finally, we identified priorities guiding the exemplars' practices. Key priorities included providing outstanding mentoring, building collaborations and relationships, and engaging in discovery and innovation. Investigators require exceptional leadership skills but receive limited systematic leadership training. Addressing this gap would advance research excellence and integrity.
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.