4.3 Review

Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2282153

Keywords

Research integrity (RI); RI codes; teaching; education; evaluation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents a systematic literature review of how RI teaching is discussed in national and international research integrity codes. The authors identified 52 national and 14 international codes and found that RI teaching is addressed in 46 national and 10 international codes. However, there is a lack of detailed guidance on the ethics approach, assessment and/or evaluation, and challenges in RI teaching. The authors provide recommendations for improving the current codes.
Presented here is a systematic literature review of how RI teaching is discussed in national and international research integrity (RI) codes. First, we set out to identify the codes that exist, and performed some generic analysis on them. Following a comprehensive search strategy, which included all 193 United Nations member states, we identified 52 national and 14 international RI codes. RI teaching is addressed in 46 national and 10 international codes. We then examined how the codes address RI teaching under the following headings: the aims, the target audience, the ethics approach proposed, the assessment and/or evaluation strategy, and any challenges identified in relation to RI teaching. There is considerable overlap between the aims of RI teaching in the various codes, for example, promoting awareness of RI. Most codes claim RI teaching is for all researchers, but without any in-depth guidance. While educational programmes, training, and mentorship/supervision are proposed for RI teaching, there is insufficient detail to identify the ethics approach to be used in such teaching. Lastly, only few address assessment and/or evaluation or challenges in RI teaching. Here, we analyzed how current codes address RI teaching; we identified some shortfalls, and in our discussion we advance recommendations.

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