Cargando…

Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of exist...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pizzolato, Daniel, Dierickx, Kris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8161563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34049556
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z
_version_ 1783700535786864640
author Pizzolato, Daniel
Dierickx, Kris
author_facet Pizzolato, Daniel
Dierickx, Kris
author_sort Pizzolato, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented. METHODS: In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders’ perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art. RESULTS: A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system. CONCLUSIONS: This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8161563
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81615632021-06-01 Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study Pizzolato, Daniel Dierickx, Kris BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented. METHODS: In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders’ perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art. RESULTS: A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system. CONCLUSIONS: This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z. BioMed Central 2021-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8161563/ /pubmed/34049556 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pizzolato, Daniel
Dierickx, Kris
Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
title Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
title_full Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
title_fullStr Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
title_short Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
title_sort stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8161563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34049556
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z
work_keys_str_mv AT pizzolatodaniel stakeholdersperspectivesonresearchintegritytrainingpracticesaqualitativestudy
AT dierickxkris stakeholdersperspectivesonresearchintegritytrainingpracticesaqualitativestudy