ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2021
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- From concept to measurement: operationalizing and normalizing Integrity Risk Indicators by SCImago (IRIS).Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Article
- From chaos to symbiosis: exploring adaptive co-evolution strategies for generative AI and research integrity systems.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Promoting good research practices in neuroscience: A foundation for integrity.Dusunen adam : Bakirkoy Ruh ve Sinir Hastaliklari Hastanesi yayin organi · 2025Article
- Review
- Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter.Journal of academic ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- The failure of success: four lessons learned in five years of research on research integrity and research assessments.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Research culture: science from bench to society.Biology open · 2021Article
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) - a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Article
- Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice.BMJ global health · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
resultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.
conclusionsOur findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. STUDY REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/33v3m.
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.