Nicholas H. Steneck

Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions

Over the last 25 years, a small but growing body of research on research behavior has slowly provided a more complete and critical understanding of research practices, particularly in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The results of this research suggest that some earlier assumptions about irresponsible conduct are not reliable, leading to the conclusion that there is a need to change the way we think about and regulate research behavior. This paper begins with suggestions for more precise definitions of the terms “responsible conduct of research,” “research ethics,” and “research integrity.” It then summarizes the findings presented in some of the more important studies of research behavior, looking first at levels of occurrence and then impact. Based on this summary, the paper concludes with general observations about priorities and recommendations for steps to improve the effectiveness of efforts to respond to misconduct and foster higher standards for integrity in research.

Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Inventory of Programs and Materials within CTSAs

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) require instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as a component of any Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The Educational Materials Group of the NIH CTSA Consortiums Clinical Research Ethics Key Function Committee (CRE‐KFC) conducted a survey of the 38 institutions that held CTSA funding as of January 2009 to determine how they satisfy RCR training requirements. An 8‐item questionnaire was sent by email to directors of the Clinical Research Ethics, the Educational and Career Development, and the Regulatory Knowledge cores. We received 78 completed surveys from 38 CTSAs (100%). We found that there is no unified approach to RCR training across CTSAs, many programs lack a coherent plan for RCR instruction, and most CTSAs have not developed unique instructional materials tailored to the needs of clinical and translational scientists. We recommend collaboration among CTSAs and across CTSA key function committees to address these weaknesses. We also requested that institutions send electronic copies of original RCR training materials to share among CTSAs via the CTSpedia website. Twenty institutions submitted at least one educational product. The CTSpedia now contains more than 90 RCR resources.

Teaching business ethics: The use of films and videota

Audio-visual material is extremely useful in the teaching of Business Ethics, yet no bibliography of the commercially available films and videotapes seems to be available. We have prepared a formal listing, complete with titles, descriptions, sources, prices and a brief evaluation, and have explained our selection and use of this material.

Global Research Integrity Training

Globalization of responsible conduct of research training should be grounded on shared professional standards. Misconduct in research remains an unresolved problem despite over 30 years of local, national, and global efforts to reduce or eliminate it. For every confirmed case of serious misbehavior or misconduct, 10 or more may exist along with many more instances of lesser unprofessional practice (1, 2). Beneath the surface of visible cases, the underlying structure supporting the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has significant flaws (3).

Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession

Integrity in research is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge, for the public’s support of research, and the autonomy of the academic profession. Misconduct in the forms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism introduces error and misrepresentation into the scientific record. This chapter reviews the history of research integrity and misconduct in the United States, as well as the nature and prevalence of misconduct. It then turns to factors associated with misconduct and efforts to promote integrity, which include policy and regulation, normative pressure, codes of conduct, training, and mentoring.

The problem of plagiarism

Plagiarism is a form of research misconduct and a serious violation of the norms of science. It is the misrepresentation of anothers ideas or words as ones own, without proper acknowledgement of the original source. Certain aspects of plagiarism make it less straightforward than this definition suggests. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. Federal Government has developed and refined its policies on misconduct, and Federal agencies, as well as research institutions, have established approaches to responding to allegations and instances of plagiarism. At present, efforts to avert plagiarism focus on plagiarism-detection software and instructional strategies.

Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment

Welcomes Research Integrity Structures Research Misconduct Codes of Conduct Fostering Responsible Research Integrity Issues for Authors and Editors Integrity in the News.

Student preceptions of institutional and instructor based techniques for dealing with academic dishonesty

Research suggests that a large percentage of engineering students engage in some form of academic dishonesty. To investigate this very serious concern, the authors have undertaken a research project on the Perceptions and Attitudes toward Cheating among Engineering Students (PACES). The premise of this research is that a combination of pressures, rather than malicious motivations, account for most student cheating. This paper focuses on a portion of the PACES survey; student opinions on what actions might prevent cheating. The authors examined data collected from approximately 350 engineering and pre-engineering undergraduate students at 5 institutions. In the survey, the students were presented with 23 institutional and instructor based actions and asked to comment on whether itch actions would prevent them from cheating if they might have been inclined to cheat under other circumstances. Student responses to those actions along with subsequent statistical analysis are reported. Practical implementations of several student-identified techniques are then discussed.

The new geography of scientific collaborations

The science ethics melting pot is just heating up; what role will emerging nations play in setting new standards of practice that ensure successful international collaborations?

Content Analysis of Major Textbooks and Online Resources Used in Responsible Conduct of Research Instruction

Instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) is required for all trainees funded by the National Institues of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF). A recent Delphi study identified 53 key topics in 7 core areas that RCR education experts felt should be included in this instruction, which is required of many trainees in clinical and translational research. We performed a content analysis of major textbooks and online resources used in RCR instruction to determine the extent to which the 53 key topics identified in the Delphi study are covered by these resources. Textbooks and online resources used in RCR education at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions were identified via survey. These resources were subjected to a content analysis. The 53 key topics identified in the Delphi study formed the basis of these analyses. We identified 10 textbooks and 1 online resource currently in use. Of the 53 key topics, only 4 were included in all 11 resources, and another 12 were included in 10. Twenty-three topics were covered in fewer than 65% of the resources, and two topics were absent from nearly all. Educators in clinical and translational research should be aware of key topics that are not covered in the RCR textbooks and online resources they may use and should consider augmenting discussion of such topics with other materials.