文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

南洋理工大学(NTU)研究人员对不同形式的研究诚信教育模式的感知和反应。

Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality.

机构信息

Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.

School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Aug 24;23(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00824-6.


DOI:10.1186/s12910-022-00824-6
PMID:36002817
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9400004/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research and academic institutions use various delivery channels to deliver Research Integrity (RI) education in their communities. Yet there is no consensus on the best delivery method and the effectiveness of these channels in inculcating a positive RI culture varies across institutions. Hence, this study aimed to understand the preferences of the research community in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. METHODS: An online survey was conducted on NTU research community to understand their experience with, and preference for each RI education mode offered in NTU. The RI education modes surveyed in the general ranking question are Data Management Plan (DMP) workshops, Epigeum e-Learning, Compass e-newsletter (email), and NTU policy on Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research. There were 242 responses, comprising 50% research students, 32.2% research staff and 17.8% faculty members. Non-parametric statistical techniques were used to analyse preferences across different RI education modes and within sub-groups (i.e., fields, age, native language, roles in research community). RESULTS: More than 92% of respondents subscribed to the importance of RI education, but with different preferences for education modes. With respect to RI education in NTU, Compass e-newsletters were ranked the lowest (p < 0.05). Most felt that they were too wordy and unengaging, making it difficult to absorb information. Similarly, Epigeum e-Learning (p < 0.05) and 'policy' (p < 0.05) were found to be too lengthy in presentation. The compulsory NTU RI education modes (Epigeum e-learning and 'policy') enjoyed higher participation rates of 70-80% compared with 32-37% for the self-regulated modes (DMP workshop and e-newsletter). This suggests that regulatory mechanisms are still necessary to promote participation in RI education, and thus, core RI education content should be made compulsory in research/academic institutions. Although Epigeum is a compulsory course, some may not have participated in the programme due to technical issues or they might have forgotten to participate in the programme within the permissible timeframe. For all four RI education modes in NTU, the lack of awareness was among the top cited reasons for not participating. CONCLUSIONS: Most NTU researchers perceived RI education positively although they may have reservations for some approaches. Conversely, e-Learning is favored over all the other modes except for the mode of Policy. Findings from this study are useful for improving the design of RI education strategies to be more appealing to the research community by enhancing user experience in terms of user-friendliness, relevance to specialisation, providing concise information and better presentation of materials For institutions with similar modes of RI education as NTU, these results may be relevant in improving participation rates and presentation of RI education modes, such as the use of infographics and more concise information.

摘要

背景:研究和学术机构使用各种传播渠道在其社区中提供研究诚信 (RI) 教育。然而,对于最佳传播方法尚无共识,并且这些渠道在灌输积极的 RI 文化方面的有效性因机构而异。因此,本研究旨在了解新加坡南洋理工大学 (NTU) 研究界的偏好。

方法:对 NTU 研究界进行了在线调查,以了解他们在 NTU 中提供的每种 RI 教育模式的体验和偏好。在一般排名问题中调查的 RI 教育模式是数据管理计划 (DMP) 研讨会、Epigeum 电子学习、指南针电子通讯 (电子邮件) 和 NTU 研究诚信和负责任的研究行为政策。共有 242 份回复,其中 50%为研究学生,32.2%为研究人员,17.8%为教师。使用非参数统计技术分析了不同 RI 教育模式之间以及子组(即领域、年龄、母语、研究界角色)内的偏好。

结果:超过 92%的受访者认为 RI 教育很重要,但对教育模式的偏好不同。就 NTU 的 RI 教育而言,指南针电子通讯排名最低(p<0.05)。大多数人认为它们过于冗长且缺乏吸引力,难以吸收信息。同样,Epigeum 电子学习 (p<0.05) 和“政策”(p<0.05) 的演示也过长。与自我监管模式(DMP 研讨会和电子通讯)的 32-37%相比,强制性 NTU RI 教育模式(Epigeum 电子学习和“政策”)的参与率更高,为 70-80%。这表明监管机制仍然是促进 RI 教育参与所必需的,因此,核心 RI 教育内容应在研究/学术机构中强制实施。尽管 Epigeum 是一门必修课,但由于技术问题或可能在允许的时间内忘记参加课程,有些人可能没有参加该课程。在 NTU 的所有四种 RI 教育模式中,缺乏意识是未参与的主要原因之一。

结论:尽管大多数 NTU 研究人员对 RI 教育持积极态度,但他们可能对某些方法持保留意见。相反,电子学习比其他所有模式都受欢迎,除了政策模式。本研究的结果有助于通过提高用户友好性、与专业化的相关性、提供简洁信息和更好地呈现材料来改善 RI 教育策略的设计,从而更吸引研究界。对于具有类似 RI 教育模式的机构,这些结果可能有助于提高 RI 教育模式的参与率和呈现方式,例如使用信息图表和更简洁的信息。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/7c2d962b4ac4/12910_2022_824_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/cac1f40a5bdc/12910_2022_824_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/c4e753fa73ae/12910_2022_824_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/2e186e00ab8a/12910_2022_824_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/078bfa05ad0a/12910_2022_824_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/8058d9e03b77/12910_2022_824_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/81b890d573db/12910_2022_824_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/7c2d962b4ac4/12910_2022_824_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/cac1f40a5bdc/12910_2022_824_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/c4e753fa73ae/12910_2022_824_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/2e186e00ab8a/12910_2022_824_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/078bfa05ad0a/12910_2022_824_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/8058d9e03b77/12910_2022_824_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/81b890d573db/12910_2022_824_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae5d/9400300/7c2d962b4ac4/12910_2022_824_Fig7_HTML.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality.

BMC Med Ethics. 2022-8-24

[2]
A study on the content of integrity policies and research integrity management in Chinese universities.

Front Res Metr Anal. 2023-2-10

[3]
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Early Hum Dev. 2020-11

[4]

2014-5

[5]
Educating PhD Students in Research Integrity in Europe.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2021-1-27

[6]
Students' preferences for returning to colleges and universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discrete choice experiment.

Socioecon Plann Sci. 2022-8

[7]
Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2023-7-20

[8]
How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland.

BMC Med Ethics. 2019-10-16

[9]
Macromolecular crowding: chemistry and physics meet biology (Ascona, Switzerland, 10-14 June 2012).

Phys Biol. 2013-8

[10]
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.

JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015-1

引用本文的文献

[1]
Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2024-7-23

本文引用的文献

[1]
Evaluating a pedagogical approach to promoting academic integrity in higher education: An online induction program.

Front Psychol. 2022-10-5

[2]
Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2021-6-16

[3]
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021-1-14

[4]
Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences.

Ethics Behav. 2017

[5]
Data falsification and question on academic integrity.

Account Res. 2019-1-16

[6]
America COMPETES at 5 years: An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities' RCR Training Plans.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2017-3-15

[7]
How Do We Know What Works? A Review and Critique of Current Practices in Ethics Training Evaluation.

Account Res. 2016

[8]
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-4

[9]
Data fraud in clinical trials.

Clin Investig (Lond). 2015

[10]
Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?

Account Res. 2015

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索