4.3 Review

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

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2282153

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据