ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Toward contextualized research integrity in higher education: a fuzzy-set analysis of individual and organizational configurations among university faculty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Shifting 'Self' of Science's Self-Governing Capacity: Four Decades of Research Integrity Discussions inSocial studies of science · 2026Article
- Research Culture and Integrity in Japan: A Qualitative Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- From responsibility to responsibilization in stem cell research: An ethical framework.Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Climate of Accountability, Respect, and Ethics Survey (CARES): development and validation of an organizational climate survey.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- For the "good of the lab": Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- Using multi-focus group method as an effective tool for eliciting business system requirements: Verified by a case study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Role-based responsibilities in securing research integrity: increasing support for multi-level implementers.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Interventions for Organizational Climate and Culture in Academia: A Scoping Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Moving towards less biased research.BMJ open science · 2021Article
- Focused Research on the Challenges and Productivity of Researchers in Nigerian Academic Institutions Without Funding.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We investigated academic researchers' perceptions on this through focus group interviews. We recruited researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center to participate in focus group discussions that consisted of researchers from similar academic ranks and disciplinary fields. We asked participants to reflect on the characteristics of a responsible research climate, the barriers they perceived and which interventions they thought fruitful to improve the research climate. Discussions were recorded and transcribed at verbatim. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the focus group transcripts. We conducted 12 focus groups with 61 researchers in total. We identified fair evaluation, openness, sufficient time, integrity, trust and freedom to be mentioned as important characteristics of a responsible research climate. Main perceived barriers were lack of support, unfair evaluation policies, normalization of overwork and insufficient supervision of early career researchers. Possible interventions suggested by the participants centered around improving support, discussing expectations and improving the quality of supervision. Some of the elements of a responsible research climate identified by participants are reflected in national and international codes of conduct, such as trust and openness. Although it may seem hard to change the research climate, we believe that the realisation that the research climate is suboptimal should provide the impetus for change informed by researchers' experiences and opinions.
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.