Were Edwin, Kiplagat Jepchirchir, Kaguiri Eunice, Ayikukwei Rose, Naanyu Violet
Department of Reproductive Health, Moi University, Box 4606 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
AMPATH Research Program, Moi University and Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Box 4606 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Jul 12;8(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00132-6.
Research misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been documented. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct.
Interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have the capacity to prevent research misconduct? (3) Does your institution have the capacity to manage research misconduct? Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including perceptions on occurrence, prevention detection, investigation, and management of research misconduct. Results are presented with illustrative quotes.
Respondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students developing thesis reports. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. There were no specific national guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity/efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting, and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of the capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by faculty researchers. We recommend the development of Kenya code of conduct or research integrity guidelines that would cover misconduct.
研究不当行为，即伪造、篡改和抄袭，与个人、机构、国家和全球因素相关。研究人员认为预防和管理研究不当行为的机构指导方针薄弱或不存在，这可能会助长这些行为。非洲很少有国家对研究不当行为有明确的指导。在肯尼亚，学术和研究机构预防或管理研究不当行为的能力尚未有记录。本研究的目的是探讨肯尼亚研究监管者对研究不当行为发生情况以及预防或管理研究不当行为的机构能力的看法。
对27名研究监管者（伦理委员会主席和秘书、学术和研究机构的研究主任以及国家监管机构）进行了开放式问题访谈。除其他问题外，还询问了参与者：（1）在您看来，研究不当行为有多普遍？（2）您的机构是否有能力预防研究不当行为？（3）您的机构是否有能力管理研究不当行为？他们的回答被录音、转录，并使用NVivo软件进行编码。演绎编码涵盖了预定义的主题，包括对研究不当行为发生、预防检测、调查和管理的看法。结果以示例引述呈现。
受访者认为研究不当行为在撰写论文报告的学生中非常普遍。他们的回答表明，在机构和国家层面没有专门的能力来预防或管理研究不当行为。没有关于研究不当行为的具体国家指导方针。在机构层面，提到的唯一能力/努力是针对减少、检测和管理学生抄袭。没有直接提到管理伪造、篡改或教师研究人员不当行为的能力。我们建议制定涵盖不当行为的肯尼亚行为准则或研究诚信指南。
