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; Niels Mejlgaard; Daniel Pizzolato; Rea Roje; Joeri Tijdink; Giuseppe Veltri

doi:10.12688/f1000research.128733.1

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, Niels Mejlgaard, Daniel Pizzolato, Rea Roje, Joeri Tijdink, Giuseppe Veltri

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reports 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.

METHODS: We 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.

RESULTS: In 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.

CONCLUSION: To 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.

Original language	English
Article number	187
Pages (from-to)	1-22
Number of pages	22
Journal	F1000Research
Volume	12
Early online date	16 Feb 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128733.1
Publication status	Published - 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
In 1992, reports of falsification, plagiarism and misconduct in science led the US National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to publish ‘Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process’ ( ). Three decades later, in response to serious cases of scientific misconduct, a disturbing increase in retractions, and low rates of reproducibility, NASEM published a new report in 2017, ‘Fostering Integrity in Research’ ( ). The National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds 27 % of federally supported research in universities and colleges in the US ( ), not only sets out detailed protocols on research integrity (RI) but also requires institutions submitting a proposal to certify that they provide training and oversight in the ethical conduct of research to all those supported by NSF. In addition to NSF’s oversight, the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Research Integrity have powers to investigate research misconduct and receive reports of possible misconduct or fraud from whistle-blowers ( ).

Funding Information:
This work was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant number: 824481).

Funding Information:
The survey was conducted as part of a larger study on RI. Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity (SOPs4RI) is a four-year project funded by the European Union under the ‘Science with and for Society’ programme ( ). IRIS is based on a systematic, stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate’s Web of Science citation database. The full sample from 34 countries is over 60,000 respondents. The focus of this paper is 2300 researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland). Few, if any, previous surveys on RI and related issues have been based on probability designs or cover such a wide range of research fields. Since 2004, a number of surveys have asked researchers about RI ( ; ; ), most recently a national study in the Netherlands ( ) but IRIS is the first survey to feature such a broad, representative international sample.

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright: © 2023 Allum N et al.

Keywords

meta-research
questionable research practices
research integrity
survey

Access to Document

10.12688/f1000research.128733.1

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Allum, N., Reid, A., Bidoglia, M., Gaskell, G., Aubert-Bonn, N., Buljan, I., Fuglsang, S., Horbach, S., Kavouras, P., Marušić, A., Mejlgaard, N., Pizzolato, D., Roje, R., Tijdink, J., & Veltri, G. (2023). Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers. F1000Research, 12, 1-22. Article 187. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128733.1

@article{bde919a71da34a9aa4be43a310b77d5f,

title = "Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Reports 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: In 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.CONCLUSION: To 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.",

keywords = "meta-research, questionable research practices, research integrity, survey",

author = "Nick Allum and Abigail Reid and Miriam Bidoglia and George Gaskell and No{\'e}mie Aubert-Bonn and Ivan Buljan and Simon Fuglsang and Serge Horbach and Panagiotis Kavouras and Ana Maru{\v s}i{\'c} and Niels Mejlgaard and Daniel Pizzolato and Rea Roje and Joeri Tijdink and Giuseppe Veltri",

note = "Funding Information: In 1992, reports of falsification, plagiarism and misconduct in science led the US National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to publish {\textquoteleft}Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process{\textquoteright} ( ). Three decades later, in response to serious cases of scientific misconduct, a disturbing increase in retractions, and low rates of reproducibility, NASEM published a new report in 2017, {\textquoteleft}Fostering Integrity in Research{\textquoteright} ( ). The National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds 27 % of federally supported research in universities and colleges in the US ( ), not only sets out detailed protocols on research integrity (RI) but also requires institutions submitting a proposal to certify that they provide training and oversight in the ethical conduct of research to all those supported by NSF. In addition to NSF{\textquoteright}s oversight, the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Research Integrity have powers to investigate research misconduct and receive reports of possible misconduct or fraud from whistle-blowers ( ). Funding Information: This work was supported by European Union{\textquoteright}s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant number: 824481). Funding Information: The survey was conducted as part of a larger study on RI. Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity (SOPs4RI) is a four-year project funded by the European Union under the {\textquoteleft}Science with and for Society{\textquoteright} programme ( ). IRIS is based on a systematic, stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate{\textquoteright}s Web of Science citation database. The full sample from 34 countries is over 60,000 respondents. The focus of this paper is 2300 researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland). Few, if any, previous surveys on RI and related issues have been based on probability designs or cover such a wide range of research fields. Since 2004, a number of surveys have asked researchers about RI ( ; ; ), most recently a national study in the Netherlands ( ) but IRIS is the first survey to feature such a broad, representative international sample. Publisher Copyright: Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Allum N et al.",

year = "2023",

doi = "10.12688/f1000research.128733.1",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

pages = "1--22",

journal = "F1000Research",

issn = "2046-1402",

publisher = "F1000 Research Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Researchers on research integrity

T2 - a survey of European and American researchers

AU - Allum, Nick

AU - Reid, Abigail

AU - Bidoglia, Miriam

AU - Gaskell, George

AU - Aubert-Bonn, Noémie

AU - Buljan, Ivan

AU - Fuglsang, Simon

AU - Horbach, Serge

AU - Kavouras, Panagiotis

AU - Marušić, Ana

AU - Mejlgaard, Niels

AU - Pizzolato, Daniel

AU - Roje, Rea

AU - Tijdink, Joeri

AU - Veltri, Giuseppe

N1 - Funding Information: In 1992, reports of falsification, plagiarism and misconduct in science led the US National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to publish ‘Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process’ ( ). Three decades later, in response to serious cases of scientific misconduct, a disturbing increase in retractions, and low rates of reproducibility, NASEM published a new report in 2017, ‘Fostering Integrity in Research’ ( ). The National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds 27 % of federally supported research in universities and colleges in the US ( ), not only sets out detailed protocols on research integrity (RI) but also requires institutions submitting a proposal to certify that they provide training and oversight in the ethical conduct of research to all those supported by NSF. In addition to NSF’s oversight, the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Research Integrity have powers to investigate research misconduct and receive reports of possible misconduct or fraud from whistle-blowers ( ). Funding Information: This work was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant number: 824481). Funding Information: The survey was conducted as part of a larger study on RI. Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity (SOPs4RI) is a four-year project funded by the European Union under the ‘Science with and for Society’ programme ( ). IRIS is based on a systematic, stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate’s Web of Science citation database. The full sample from 34 countries is over 60,000 respondents. The focus of this paper is 2300 researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland). Few, if any, previous surveys on RI and related issues have been based on probability designs or cover such a wide range of research fields. Since 2004, a number of surveys have asked researchers about RI ( ; ; ), most recently a national study in the Netherlands ( ) but IRIS is the first survey to feature such a broad, representative international sample. Publisher Copyright: Copyright: © 2023 Allum N et al.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - BACKGROUND: Reports 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: In 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.CONCLUSION: To 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.

AB - BACKGROUND: Reports 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: In 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.CONCLUSION: To 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.

KW - meta-research

KW - questionable research practices

KW - research integrity

KW - survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85152920320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85152920320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.12688/f1000research.128733.1

DO - 10.12688/f1000research.128733.1

M3 - Article

C2 - 37455853

AN - SCOPUS:85152920320

SN - 2046-1402

VL - 12

SP - 1

EP - 22

JO - F1000Research

JF - F1000Research

M1 - 187

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this