Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33502638›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021

Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review.

Rea Ščepanović, Krishma Labib, Ivan Buljan, Joeri Tijdink, Ana Marušić

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Rea ŠčepanovićSchool of Medicine, Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia. rea.scepanovic@mefst.hr.ORCID 0000-0002-0118-3115
Krishma LabibDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5305-8984
Ivan BuljanSchool of Medicine, Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-8719-7277
Joeri TijdinkDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1826-2274
Ana MarušićSchool of Medicine, Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-6272-0917

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research integrity (RI) is a continuously developing concept, and increasing emphasis is put on creating RI promotion practices. This study aimed to map the existing RI guidance documents at research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs). A search of bibliographic databases and grey literature sources was performed, and retrieved documents were screened for eligibility. The search of bibliographical databases and reference lists of selected articles identified a total of 92 documents while the search of grey literature sources identified 118 documents for analysis. The retrieved documents were analysed based on their geographical origin, research field and organisational origin (RPO or RFO) of RI practices, types of guidance presented in them, and target groups to which RI practices are directed. Most of the identified practices were developed for research in general, and are applicable to all research fields (n = 117) and medical sciences (n = 78). They were mostly written in the form of guidelines (n = 136) and targeted researchers (n = 167). A comprehensive search of the existing RI promotion practices showed that initiatives mostly come from RPOs while only a few RI practices originate from RFOs. This study showed that more RI guidance documents are needed for natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities since only a small number of documents was developed specifically for these research fields. The explored documents and the gaps in knowledge identified in this study can be used for further development of RI promotion practices in RPOs and RFOs.

Indexed as

OrganizationsResearch PersonnelHumansResearch ethicsResearch funding organisationsResearch integrityResearch integrity practicesResearch integrity promotionResearch performing organisations

Identifiers

PMID33502638
PMCPMC7840650

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.