Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34244889›Full record

ReviewScience and engineering ethics2021

Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study.

Krishma Labib, Rea Roje, Lex Bouter, Guy Widdershoven, Natalie Evans, Ana Marušić, Lidwine Mokkink, Joeri Tijdink

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Coordinating culture change across the research landscape.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023
    Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Krishma LabibDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.labib@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-5305-8984
Rea RojeSchool of Medicine, University of Split, Šoltanska ul. 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.
Lex BouterDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Guy WiddershovenDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Natalie EvansDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ana MarušićSchool of Medicine, University of Split, Šoltanska ul. 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.
Lidwine MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joeri TijdinkDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-of-science factors that influence researchers' behavior. Consequently, research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) could develop comprehensive RI policies outlining the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are important to address in RI policies. Therefore, we conducted a three round Delphi survey study to explore which RI topics to address in institutional RI policies by seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the study. There was consensus among the experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs. The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and mentoring, dealing with RI breaches, and supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance). The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of interest, and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI). Together with the research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in the RI policies of RPOs and RFOs. The topics reflect preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with procedures for dealing with RI breaches. RPOs and RFOs should address each of these topics in order to support researchers in conducting responsible research.

Indexed as

OrganizationsResearch PersonnelDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesInstitutional policiesResearch funding organizationsResearch integrityResearch integrity policyResearch performing organizations

Identifiers

PMID34244889
PMCPMC8270794

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.