Lind Rebecca Ann
University of Illinois at Chicago, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (m/c 672), 1737 W. Polk Street, Suite 310, Chicago, IL 6062-7227, USA.
Account Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;12(3):241-62. doi: 10.1080/08989620500217560.
This pilot study evaluates the accessibility and usefulness of the research misconduct (RM) policies at the top-25 universities as ranked by NIH and NSF grant awards. Measuring accessibility demonstrates how readily-available policies are to the people they affect. Evaluating the range of policy content indicates whether policies and procedures on research misconduct are "useful" as opposed to merely "minimal" (Rhoades, 2003). On average, it took five clicks to get from a university's home page to its RM policies. Only nine policies were accessed within three or fewer clicks. Policy information was coded into categories comprising a total of 20 topic areas, which were then grouped into five content domains. The policies reveal a broad range of usefulness. Some provide relevant details on almost every topic area, while others leave most questions unanswered. Three of the 20 topic areas are almost universally covered in the policies analyzed. In contrast, five other topic areas average less than half of the information which could have been included. These policies, from elite U.S. research universities, may serve as role models; as such they should perhaps be held to the highest standards. If the message sent by a policy lacks clarity and precision, it should be revised to include an appropriate level of detail.
本试点研究评估了按美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）和美国国家科学基金会（NSF）资助奖项排名前25的大学的研究不端行为（RM）政策的可及性和实用性。衡量可及性展示了政策对于受其影响的人员而言获取的难易程度。评估政策内容的范围表明关于研究不端行为的政策和程序是“有用的”，而非仅仅是“最低限度的”（罗兹，2003年）。平均而言，从大学主页进入其RM政策需要点击五次。只有九项政策能在三次或更少点击内被访问到。政策信息被编码为总共20个主题领域的类别，然后被归为五个内容领域。这些政策显示出广泛的实用性差异。一些政策几乎在每个主题领域都提供了相关细节，而另一些则让大多数问题没有答案。在所分析的政策中，20个主题领域中有三个几乎被普遍涵盖。相比之下，其他五个主题领域平均包含的信息不到本可包含信息的一半。这些来自美国顶尖研究型大学的政策可能会成为典范；因此，或许应该以最高标准来要求它们。如果一项政策传达的信息缺乏清晰度和精确性，就应该进行修订以纳入适当详细程度的内容。
