4.3 Article

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

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1732824

Keywords

Research integrity; responsible conduct of research; researcher responsibilities; integrity enablers; Singapore Statement

Categories

Funding

  1. University of New South Wales (UNSW)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available