ArticleOpen research Europe2026
Research integrity in practice: Qualitative analysis of team members' reflection reports highlights the importance of ongoing collaborative learning.
Article in Open research Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Universities have a responsibility to provide research integrity (RI) training. Moreover, there is growing recognition that RI training should be continuous and the content discipline- and domain-relevant. In this study, we explore the experiences of researchers of a RI initiative embedded within a domain-specific programme, namely 'end-of-life' research. End-of-life research represents a potentially 'high-risk' domain when it comes to RI, due to the substantial methodological and ethical challenges involved in researching this patient population, and it can provide an exemplary case for domain specific initiatives. Continuous attention to RI was embedded in The CONT-END end-of-life research programme. The programme's RI component consisted of regular team meetings to discuss hypothetical RI dilemmas; a two-day RI course; and collaboration with a researcher conducting a meta-research study on end-of-life research. Methods: Participating researchers' experiences and perceptions of the RI component were collected through reflective essays half-way through the project (2022/23). Two researchers conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of eight reflective essays from PhD candidates, postdoctoral fellows and an intern. Results: Three main themes, each with two sub-themes, were developed from the collaborative analysis. These were: (1) 'Learning' integrity (subthemes: Collaborative team learning from cases, and Learning principles and rules); (2) 'Being' a good researcher and 'doing' good research (subthemes:'Being' more aware of RI, and 'Doing' better research); (3) 'Influencing' and 'being influenced' by the team (subthemes: Normalising and giving space to RI, and The influence of, and on, team dynamics including team building). Conclusion: This qualitative evaluation of a multi-layered, continuous RI initiative situated within a domain-specific research area showed the value of case-based collaborative learning both for learning about RI and for team building and socialization as a researcher. Future research should assess what types of training, including collaborative learning initiatives, have impact on how research is actually being conducted in research practice.
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.