Suppr超能文献

学术研究诚信:探究研究人员对责任和促进因素的认知。

Academic research integrity: Exploring researchers' perceptions of responsibilities and enablers.

机构信息

School of Business, UNSW - Canberra, Australia.

Division of Academic Conduct & Integrity, UNSW - Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Account Res. 2020 Apr;27(3):146-177. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1732824. Epub 2020 Mar 3.

Abstract

In this paper, we explore academic researchers' perceptions of the relative importance of the individual responsibilities in the "Singapore Statement on Research Integrity". The way researchers view those responsibilities affects the role that research integrity enablers can play in achieving responsible research conduct. Hence, we also explore researchers' perceptions of five such integrity enablers in this paper: country and university codes of conduct, staff training, mentoring and peer pressure.Using data from a global online survey of university researchers (n = 302), a Best-Worst Scaling approach was used to elicit researchers' priorities in different scenarios of responsibilities. In conjunction with latent class analysis, this yielded the implied relative importance of each researcher responsibility. For three of the four homogeneous classes of researchers identified, a different responsibility dominated the hierarchy. For instance, STEM researchers gave precedence to research methods over all other responsibilities. In relation to researchers' perceptions on the effects of research integrity enablers, our results identified research mentoring relationships and normative peer pressure as important integrity conduits. Further exploration showed that researchers differed in their perceptions on enablers, particularly by academic position, duration of employment and country of employment. Based on our exploratory study, we identify several avenues for further research.

摘要

在本文中,我们探讨了学术研究人员对“新加坡研究诚信声明”中各项个体责任相对重要性的看法。研究人员对这些责任的看法会影响研究诚信促进因素在实现负责任的研究行为方面所能发挥的作用。因此,本文还探讨了研究人员对以下五项诚信促进因素的看法:国家和大学行为准则、员工培训、指导和同行压力。

我们使用来自全球大学研究人员在线调查(n=302)的数据,采用最佳最差标度法(Best-Worst Scaling approach)在不同责任情景中引出研究人员的优先事项。结合潜在类别分析,得出了每个研究人员责任的隐含相对重要性。在所确定的四个同质研究人员类别中的三个类别中,不同的责任在层次结构中占主导地位。例如,STEM 研究人员将研究方法置于所有其他责任之上。

关于研究人员对研究诚信促进因素的看法,我们的研究结果表明,研究指导关系和规范的同行压力是重要的诚信渠道。进一步的探索表明,研究人员对促进因素的看法存在差异,特别是在学术地位、就业期限和就业国家方面。

基于我们的探索性研究,我们确定了进一步研究的几个方向。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验