Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37455853›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2023

Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers.

Nick Allum, Abigail Reid, Miriam Bidoglia, George Gaskell, Noémie Aubert-Bonn, Ivan Buljan, Simon Fuglsang, Serge Horbach, Panagiotis Kavouras, Ana Marušić and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors.

Nick AllumDepartment of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1746-2514
Abigail ReidDepartment of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Miriam BidogliaDepartment of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
George GaskellDepartment of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6135-9496
Noémie Aubert-BonnDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ivan BuljanDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-8719-7277
Simon FuglsangDepartment of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Serge HorbachDepartment of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0406-6261
Panagiotis KavourasDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-6272-0917
Niels MejlgaardDepartment of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9785-1746
Daniel PizzolatoCentre for Bioethics and Law, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3954-5924
Rea RojeDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Joeri TijdinkDepartment of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Giuseppe VeltriDepartment of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9472-2236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies.

methodsWe administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland).  We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree.

resultsIn comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans.

conclusionTo create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Indexed as

AttitudeResearchEuropeHumansReproducibility of ResultsSwitzerlandmeta-researchquestionable research practicesresearch integritysurvey

Identifiers

PMID37455853
PMCPMC10349267

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.