Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33303039›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2020

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.

Michael Kalichman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael KalichmanResearch Ethics Program, UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA. mkalichman@ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4268-1188

Funding

UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR001442 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S, HOGARTH, MICHAEL · 2015 to 2024
$88.3M
National Institutes of Health / NCATS (US) UL1TR001442National Science Foundation (US) CCE STEM #1835029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?

methodsWith that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.

resultsTwenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.

conclusionsThese results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.

Indexed as

Good practices of researchResearch integrity officerResearch misconductResponsible conduct of research

Identifiers

PMID33303039
PMCPMC7731550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.