Godecharle Simon, Nemery Benoit, Dierickx Kris
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Jul;9(3):79-90. doi: 10.1177/1556264614540594.
Similar forms of misconduct are perceived differently throughout Europe. There are no extensive surveys on the guidance on research integrity in the different countries of Europe. Therefore, we performed a systematic content analysis of (biomedical) research integrity guidance documents from all the countries of the European Economic Area. We show that there is strong heterogeneity concerning research integrity guidance on crucial aspects, for example, the defining of research misconduct, at both an international and a national level. We also sought to explain why the guidance documents differ by distinguishing the approaches that underlie them. We distinguished a value-based and a norm-based approach, as well as different perspectives on trust. The current confusing situation concerning research integrity guidance hampers international research and possibly wastes research funds. We risk talking past each other, if we do not take the distinction between these underlying approaches into account.
在整个欧洲，类似形式的不当行为被认为有所不同。欧洲不同国家没有关于研究诚信指导的广泛调查。因此，我们对欧洲经济区所有国家的（生物医学）研究诚信指导文件进行了系统的内容分析。我们表明，在国际和国家层面，在关键方面，例如研究不当行为的定义，研究诚信指导存在很大的异质性。我们还试图通过区分指导文件背后的方法来解释为什么这些指导文件存在差异。我们区分了基于价值观和基于规范的方法，以及对信任的不同观点。目前关于研究诚信指导的混乱局面阻碍了国际研究，可能还浪费了研究资金。如果我们不考虑这些潜在方法之间的区别，就有可能出现各说各话的情况。
