Activity for CUREs to increase student understanding and application of responsible authorship and publication practices.

Professional development of scientists is enhanced by training students in responsible conduct of research earlier in their careers. One aspect of responsible conduct of research is authorship ethics, which concerns granting of credit to those who make intellectual contributions to the research. The activity discussed in this article emphasizes how authorship ethics can be integrated with Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) and includes an adaption that could also be used for independent research students. The activity allows students to reflect upon inequalities and problems seen in scientific authorship, including gender bias, failure to credit effort (ghostwriters), and inclusion of authors that did not meaningfully contribute to the work (honorary/gift authorship). Themes seen in student reflections on how they could demonstrate ethics in authorship included: determining authorship by contribution, appropriate attributions on curriculum vitas (CV) and posters, different credit levels, understanding authorship criteria, and tracking contributions. Themes seen in student reflections on the importance of authorship were proper authorship credit distribution, authorship impacting career opportunities, and accountability in research. In the activity, students also created attributions for a poster to be presented from their research. We found that most students were able to create attributions that were correctly formatted, included the same authors, and positioned authors in the same order as other group members, matching what was presented on the finalized poster. We found that students' reflection on authorship and this professionalization of their activities in their CURE led to modest increases in their view of themselves as scientists.

Developing an Evidence-Based Ethics Education Program for Surgical Residents in Guatemala.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed 2 modalities for teaching responsible conduct of research and human subjects protection (RCR/HSP) to surgical residents in Guatemala-an "off the shelf" online curriculum and a new in-person curriculum specific to the local context. METHODS: In 2018, 160 surgical residents in 3 large urban hospitals in Guatemala City completed 2 online programs in RCR/HSP. Residents in the intervention arm also completed 7 weeks of in-person training. Pre- and post-assessments tested awareness of key concepts with particular attention to international and Guatemalan research regulations. Group differences in matched (pre- and post-) mean scores were analyzed using t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred forty residents completed pre- and post-training assessments and were included in the analytic sample. Overall mean scores improved modestly from 52.7 to 58.7 points out of 100. Intervention-arm trainees reported greater confidence in recognizing ethical issues, understanding legal and ethical requirements for research, and identifying, reporting and avoiding scientific misconduct than control-arm trainees. CONCLUSION: Given the limited availability of RCR/HSP faculty, financial resources, and time in the surgical training schedule, the investigators recommend that academic authorities in Guatemala consider online training programs in RCR/HSP in all surgical residency programs as an affordable and scalable strategy to build ethical research skills in its surgical workforce. Investment in human resources to support in-person ethics education as a way to build self-efficacy in ethical decision-making should be considered.

Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States.

Background: A person's cultural background shapes how they interpret and navigate problems. Given that large numbers of international researchers work and train in the U.S. we sought to better understand how researchers use the decision-making strategy of seeking help to navigate ethical and professional challenges.Methods: Participants (N = 300) were researchers working or training in the U.S. who were born in East Asia (EA) or born in the U.S. They completed a screening survey; then a subset completed think-aloud interviews (n = 66) focused on how they would respond to three hypothetical research scenarios.Results: Thematic analysis of the transcripts showed that seeking help was a commonly endorsed strategy, with some nuances between groups. Themes included seeking help in the form of getting advice, seeking someone to help solve the problem, and gathering information. Endorsement of the seeking help strategy frequently depended on participants' relationships; desiring to seek help from people they trusted. Notably, EA participants tended to prefer seeking help in ways that avoided reputational harm to others.Conclusion: A better understanding of how researchers from different cultural backgrounds use decision-making strategies can inform how to make educational programs more inclusive and comprehensive to more effectively develop researchers' ethical and professional decision-making skills.

A tale of two formats: Graduate students' perceptions and preferences of interactivity in Responsible conduct of research education.

BACKGROUND: The significance of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education in higher education is well-acknowledged. However, the lack of interactivity in online RCR courses remains a concern for course designers and instructors. This research aims to identify types of interactivity embedded in RCR courses and examine graduate students' perceived interactivity in different course formats (online versus face-to-face) by two distinct samples. METHODS/MATERIALS: Study one, involving 191 participants, identified the model construct of the Learner Perceptions of Interactivity Scale for RCR. The result indicated a 15-item scale characterized by three factors: self-control, human-interaction, and information-access. Study two, involving a sample of 390 individuals who received both formats of RCR instruction, confirmed the instrument's reliability and explored students' perceptions of interactivity types within the two formats. RESULTS: Notably, students in Study 2 perceived a higher degree of human interaction in the face-to-face format while attributing more significance to self-control and information access in the online course. Approximately 80% of the students expressed a preference for a fully online course if given another opportunity to choose or recommend a format. This preference was attributed to their inclination toward more control and access, underscoring the significance of these elements in shaping their learning experiences.

Research Integrity definitions and challenges.

Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past 2 decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

Virtues and vocation: An historical perspective on scientific integrity in the twenty-first century.

According to the Dutch chemist Gerrit Jan Mulder (1802-1880), the principal aim of university education was character building and moral edification. Professional training was of secondary importance. Mulder's ideas about the vocation and moral mission of the university professor can serve as a historical counterpart to later Weberian, Mertonian, and contemporary ideas on the ethos of science. I argue that a revaluation of the moral precepts that Mulder saw as defining the life of an academic is helpful in dealing with the problems of late modern science, such as the replication crisis and research misconduct. Addressing such problems must start in the university classrooms. To empower students to internalize the principles of responsible conduct of research, we need an updated version of Mulder's idea of the university professor as a moral agent.

Responsible and ethical conduct of research (RECR) diagnostic survey using case scenarios from biology course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs).

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are increasingly becoming the first, and perhaps only, research experience for many biology students. Responsible and ethical conduct of research (RECR) is crucial for the integrity of scientific research and essential for students to have an understanding of the scientific process at any academic level. However, there is a current lack of RECR education in biology CUREs. To understand the level of RECR knowledge and skills in undergraduate students, we created a diagnostic survey that uses case scenarios designed to illustrate RECR issues in the CURE classroom. Analysis of students' responses indicated that the overall percentage of students who are able to effectively use RECR terminology and identify the impact of RECR violations on science integrity and ultimately on society is low. Furthermore, some students equated RECR violations to academic dishonesty, indicating difficulties separating the research and academic aspects of CUREs. This diagnostic tool can aid instructors in identifying gaps in student RECR knowledge for the subsequent development of RECR educational interventions, particularly to ensure the integrity of the research performed in CURE settings.

Defining "recklessness" in research misconduct proceedings.

To find research misconduct in research that has been supported by federal funds, an institution must determine that the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. "Intentional" and "knowing" are straightforward standards. Yet "reckless" often mystifies institutions, which struggle to assess whether a respondent's conduct should be deemed "reckless," or merely negligent. This difficulty is most pronounced when allegations are lodged against the author under whose supervision the primary research was conducted - most often, the senior and/or corresponding author of a published paper who may not have been directly involved in performing the experiments or preparing the data under scrutiny. In these situations, investigation committees and the institutional "deciding official" must assess whether the supervising scientist is guilty of research misconduct - based on the theory that their supervision of the research and development of the publication containing falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized information was reckless - even if that person did not perform the experiment or assemble the research records in question. This paper seeks to provide a framework for evaluating the circumstances in which past supervisory conduct should be deemed "reckless" and thus a basis on which a finding of research misconduct may be made.

Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education.

With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender1 across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well.2 However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction.

Novel Collaborations Across Training Programs to Support Mentoring in Sex Differences Research.

There is a critical need to develop a capable and well-trained workforce dedicated to the systematic study of sex differences and examination of sex as a biological variable. Through the support of the Office of Research on Women's Health and partner National Institute of Health centers, the Specialized Centers of Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences Career Enhancement Cores (CECs) were established to help address this need. We describe the integration of the Medical University of South Carolina SCORE CEC with other National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and institutional training programs to promote training synergies, share resources, and enhance mentorship opportunities. Benefits of developing an intrainstitutional training platform have included facilitating cross-disciplinary interactions, encouragement of peer mentorship, and reduced burden on training program leadership.

Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions.

To foster research integrity (RI), research institutions should develop a continuous RI education approach, addressing various target groups. To support institutions to achieve this, we developed RI education guidelines together with RI experts and research administrators, exploring similarities and differences in recommendations across target groups, as well as recommendations about RI education using approaches other than formal RI training. We used an iterative co-creative process. We conducted four half-day online co-creation workshops with 16 participants in total, which were informed by the RI education evidence-base. In the first two workshops, participants generated ideas for guidelines' content, focusing on different target groups and various approaches to RI education. Based on this content we developed first drafts of the guidelines. Participants in the third and fourth workshop refined those drafts. We next organized a working group which further prioritized, reorganized, and optimized the content of the guidelines. We developed four guidelines on RI education focusing on (a) bachelor, master and PhD students; (b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; (c) other RI stakeholders; as well as (d) continuous RI education. Across guidelines, we recommend mandatory RI training; follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about RI; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in RI education; and evaluation of RI educational events. Our work provides experience-based co-created guidance to research institutions on what to consider when developing a successful RI education strategy. Each guideline is offered as a distinct, publicly available tool in our toolbox ( www.sops4ri.eu/toolbox ) which institutions can access, adapt and implement to meet their institution-specific RI education needs.Trial registration https://osf.io/zej5b .

Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science.

This article argues that adopting a research ethics and integrity perspective could support researchers in operationalizing the open science guiding principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" in a responsible and context-sensitive manner. To that end, the article points out why the guiding principle as such provides only a limited extent of action-guidance and outlines the practical value of ethical reflection when it comes to translating open science into responsible research practice. The article illustrates how research ethics and integrity considerations may help researchers understand the ethical rationale underpinning open science as well as recognize that limiting openness is necessary or at least normatively permissible in some situations. Finally, the article briefly discusses possible consequences of integrating open science into a responsibility-centered framework and implications on research assessment.

Biomedical supervisors' role modeling of open science practices.

Supervision is one important way to socialize Ph.D. candidates into open and responsible research. We hypothesized that one should be more likely to identify open science practices (here publishing open access and sharing data) in empirical publications that were part of a Ph.D. thesis when the Ph.D. candidates' supervisors engaged in these practices compared to those whose supervisors did not or less often did. Departing from thesis repositories at four Dutch University Medical centers, we included 211 pairs of supervisors and Ph.D. candidates, resulting in a sample of 2062 publications. We determined open access status using UnpaywallR and Open Data using Oddpub, where we also manually screened publications with potential open data statements. Eighty-three percent of our sample was published openly, and 9% had open data statements. Having a supervisor who published open access more often than the national average was associated with an odds of 1.99 to publish open access. However, this effect became nonsignificant when correcting for institutions. Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19-4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86-11.35) after removing false positives. The prevalence of open data in our sample was comparable to international studies; open access rates were higher. Whilst Ph.D. candidates spearhead initiatives to promote open science, this study adds value by investigating the role of supervisors in promoting open science.

Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research.

Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might-and might not- be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research.

How Do Scientists Perceive the Relationship Between Ethics and Science? A Pilot Study of Scientists' Appeals to Values.

Efforts to promote responsible conduct of research (RCR) should take into consideration how scientists already conceptualize the relationship between ethics and science. In this study, we investigated how scientists relate ethics and science by analyzing the values expressed in interviews with fifteen science faculty members at a large midwestern university. We identified the values the scientists appealed to when discussing research ethics, how explicitly they related their values to ethics, and the relationships between the values they appealed to. We found that the scientists in our study appealed to epistemic and ethical values with about the same frequency, and much more often than any other type of value. We also found that they explicitly associated epistemic values with ethical values. Participants were more likely to describe epistemic and ethical values as supporting each other, rather than trading off with each other. This suggests that many scientists already have a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between ethics and science, which may be an important resource for RCR training interventions.

How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity?

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for trustworthy research. Rules are important in setting RI standards and improving research practice, but they can lead to increased bureaucracy; without commensurate commitment amongst researchers toward RI, they are unlikely to improve research practices. In this paper, we explore how to combine rules and commitment in fostering RI. Research institutions can govern RI using markets (using incentives), bureaucracies (using rules), and network processes (through commitment and agreements). Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes, as part of the lifeworld, can legitimize systems - that is, market or bureaucratic governance modes. This can regulate and support RI practices in an efficient way. Systems can also become dominant and repress consensus processes. Fostering RI requires a balance between network, market and bureaucratic governance modes. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can be combined with bureaucratic rules. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated different governance modes, resulting in a normatively grounded and efficient approach to fostering RI. Based on this case, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.

The Contribution of Moral Case Deliberation to Teaching RCR to PhD Students.

Teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to PhD students is crucial for fostering responsible research practice. In this paper, we show how the use of Moral Case Deliberation-a case reflection method used in the Amsterdam UMC RCR PhD course-is particularity valuable to address three goals of RCR education: (1) making students aware of, and internalize, RCR principles and values, (2) supporting reflection on good conduct in personal daily practice, and (3) developing students' dialogical attitude and skills so that they can deliberate on RCR issues when they arise. What makes this method relevant for RCR education is the focus on values and personal motivations, the structured reflection on real experiences and dilemmas and the cultivation of participants' dialogical skills. During these structured conversations, students reflect on the personal motives that drive them to adhere to the principles of good science, thereby building connections between those principles and their personal values and motives. Moreover, by exploring personal questions and dilemmas related to RCR, they learn how to address these with colleagues and supervisors. The reflection on personal experiences with RCR issues and questions combined with the study of relevant normative frameworks, support students to act responsibly and to pursue RCR in their day-to-day research practice in spite of difficulties and external constraints.

Research integrity and the regulatory-industrial complex.

Integrity in research is essential so that research can do what it is supposed to do: help us discover - or get closer to - the truth about the world and how it works. Research integrity means conducting oneself in ways that are worthy of the trust that the public invests in science. Efforts over the past five decades to ensure that researchers conduct themselves with integrity have focused on regulating researcher behavior. The suite of regulatory requirements - over 100 of them - is typically managed by an office of research compliance at universities and research institutions. The regulations, and the accompanying rules and policies, have created a regulatory-industrial complex that, while necessary, should give us pause. With the proliferation of regulations, professional organizations and certifications blossom, providing much-needed training and vouching for expertise in particular regulations. This credibility is crucial, but it also gives a false impression that we can regulate our way to ethical science. Creating a regulatory-industrial complex will not achieve our goal of an ethical research enterprise. We need to build ethical institutional cultures, engage the commitment of the entire research enterprise, and do the hard work of holding accountable the entire research ecosystem.

The present situation of and challenges in research ethics and integrity promotion: Experiences in East Asia.

As relatively new economies to the global research arena, East Asian nations have fully realized the importance of research integrity in recent decades. This article conducts document analysis to demonstrate and discuss the current situation of research integrity campaigns in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, nations that have similar cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. This article emphasizes the common situations faced by these three nations both individually and collectively. Based on a four-pillar framework, research integrity campaigns in these nations are making progress in terms of policies and regulations, institutional management, researchers' education and training, and the handling of misconduct cases. Various issues and challenges have also emerged in this context, although these efforts may have had positive impacts on research communities in these three nations. Challenges associated with research integrity governance, institutional willingness, RCR instructor qualifications, the effectiveness of education, and the standardization of definitions of misconduct and noncompliance are also highlighted. The issues discussed in this article are expected to have implications for research communities and policy-makers in these three nations as well as in a global context.