• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.1080/08989621.2020.1732824
PMID:32073893
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。

相似文献

1
Academic research integrity: Exploring researchers' perceptions of responsibilities and enablers.学术研究诚信:探究研究人员对责任和促进因素的认知。
Account Res. 2020 Apr;27(3):146-177. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1732824. Epub 2020 Mar 3.
2
What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists.科研行为责任方面的指导与培训和科学家的不当行为有何关系?来自一项对美国国立卫生研究院资助科学家的全国性调查的结果。
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):853-60. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c.
3
Perceptions on the role of research integrity officers in French medical schools.对法国医学院校研究诚信官员角色的看法。
Account Res. 2024 Oct;31(7):826-846. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2173070. Epub 2023 Feb 14.
4
Researchers' interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study.研究者对研究诚信的理解:一项定性研究。
Account Res. 2018;25(2):79-93. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1413940. Epub 2018 Jan 1.
5
Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.学术研究人员在科研诚信氛围方面的感知因学术等级和学科领域而异:来自阿姆斯特丹学术研究人员调查的结果。
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 18;14(1):e0210599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210599. eCollection 2019.
6
Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China.生物医学研究中的诚信:中国研究的系统评价。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1271-1301. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0057-x. Epub 2018 May 2.
7
Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study.关系责任:研究人员对当前和渐进式评估标准的看法:焦点小组研究。
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 4;19(9):e0307814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307814. eCollection 2024.
8
Medical researchers' ancillary clinical care responsibilities.医学研究人员的辅助临床护理职责。
BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1494-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1494.
9
Challenges and enablers of the embedded researcher model.嵌入式研究人员模式的挑战与促成因素。
J Health Organ Manag. 2020 Sep 15;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1108/JHOM-02-2020-0043.
10
How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland.研究人员如何获得和发展研究诚信观念?瑞士生物医学研究人员的定性研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Oct 16;20(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x.

引用本文的文献

1
Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.科研诚信监督实践与机构支持:一项定性研究
J Acad Ethics. 2022 Dec 22:1-22. doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.