Cenci Jaisson, Franco Marina Christ, Pereira-Cenci Tatiana, Correa Marcos Britto, Helal Lucas, Moher David, Bouter Lex, Huysmans Marie Charlotte, Cenci Maximiliano Sérgio
Universidade Federal de Pelotas - UFPel, School of Dentistry, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Radboud University Medical Center, Research Institute for Medical Innovation, Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Braz Oral Res. 2024 Dec 20;38:e135. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0135. eCollection 2024.
The objective of this study was to evaluate Brazilian dental researchers' perceptions of research integrity and open science practices, as well as their perceptions of the way researchers are evaluated for promotion, hiring, and receiving grants. In a self-administered online survey, the respondents were presented with 3 questions on researcher evaluation in Brazil. Additionally, for 25 academic activities or characteristics, researchers rated their perceived importance for a) career advancement, b) science advancement, c) personal satisfaction, and d) social impact. The questionnaire was sent to a total of 2,179 dental researchers working in graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil. Multilevel regressions were performed to statistically confirm the differences between the predefined subgroups. Three hundred and fifty-five (16%) researchers completed the survey. Most respondents (96.1%) considered the current evaluation system to be flawed and indicated the need for improvement. Non-traditional activities were considered more important than traditional ones for science advancement (p < 0.01), and social impact (p < 0.01), whereas traditional activities were perceived to be more important only for career advancement (p < 0.01). Although Brazilian dental researchers recognize the value of open science and research integrity practices for science advancement and impact on society, they perceive that the current evaluation system emphasizes traditional activities, such as publishing many papers in well-recognized journals as criteria for advancing their careers.
本研究的目的是评估巴西牙科研究人员对研究诚信和开放科学实践的看法，以及他们对研究人员在晋升、招聘和获得资助方面的评估方式的看法。在一项自行管理的在线调查中，向受访者提出了3个关于巴西研究人员评估的问题。此外，针对25项学术活动或特征，研究人员对其在以下方面的重要性进行了评分：a）职业发展、b）科学进步、c）个人满意度和d）社会影响。问卷共发送给了巴西牙科研究生项目中的2179名牙科研究人员。进行了多层次回归分析，以统计确认预定义亚组之间的差异。355名（16%）研究人员完成了调查。大多数受访者（96.1%）认为当前的评估系统存在缺陷，并表示需要改进。对于科学进步（p < 0.01）和社会影响（p < 0.01）而言，非传统活动被认为比传统活动更重要，而传统活动仅在职业发展方面被认为更重要（p < 0.01）。尽管巴西牙科研究人员认识到开放科学和研究诚信实践对科学进步和社会影响的价值，但他们认为当前的评估系统强调传统活动，例如在知名期刊上发表多篇论文作为职业发展的标准。
