Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

Research integrity (RI) is usually discussed in terms of responsibilities that individual researchers bear towards the scientific work they conduct, as well as responsibilities that institutions have to enable those individual researchers to do so. In addition to these two bearers of responsibility, a third category often surfaces, which is variably referred to as culture and practice. These notions merit further development beyond a residual category that is to contain everything that is not covered by attributions to individuals and institutions. This paper discusses how thinking in RI can take benefit from more specific ideas on practice and culture. We start by articulating elements of practice and culture, and explore how values central to RI are related to these elements. These insights help identify additional points of intervention for fostering responsible conduct. This helps to build "cultures and practices of research integrity", as it makes clear that specific times and places are connected to specific practices and cultures and should have a place in the debate on Research Integrity. With this conceptual framework, practitioners as well as theorists can avoid using the notions as residual categories that de facto amount to vague, additional burdens of responsibility for the individual.

Making researchers responsible: attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct.

BACKGROUND: Research codes of conduct offer guidance to researchers with respect to which values should be realized in research practices, how these values are to be realized, and what the respective responsibilities of the individual and the institution are in this. However, the question of how the responsibilities are to be divided between the individual and the institution has hitherto received little attention. We therefore performed an analysis of research codes of conduct to investigate how responsibilities are positioned as individual or institutional, and how the boundary between the two is drawn. METHOD: We selected 12 institutional, national and international codes of conduct that apply to medical research in the Netherlands and subjected them to a close-reading content analysis. We first identified the dominant themes and then investigated how responsibility is attributed to individuals and institutions. RESULTS: We observed that the attribution of responsibility to either the individual or the institution is often not entirely clear, and that the notion of culture emerges as a residual category for such attributions. We see this notion of responsible research cultures as important; it is something that mediates between the individual level and the institutional level. However, at the same time it largely lacks substantiation. CONCLUSIONS: While many attributions of individual and institutional responsibility are clear, the exact boundary between the two is often problematic. We suggest two possible avenues for improving codes of conduct: either to clearly attribute responsibilities to individuals or institutions and depend less on the notion of culture, or to make culture a more explicit concern and articulate what it is and how a good culture might be fostered.

Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement.

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: § 1. Providing information about research integrity § 2. Providing education, training and mentoring § 3. Strengthening a research integrity culture § 4. Facilitating open dialogue § 5. Wise incentive management § 6. Implementing quality assurance procedures § 7. Improving the work environment and work satisfaction § 8. Increasing transparency of misconduct cases § 9. Opening up research § 10. Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels § 11. Protecting the alleged perpetrators § 12. Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson § 13. Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity.

Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review.

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible conduct of research (RCR) might contain-and how it differs across disciplines (i.e. how it is conceptualized and operationalized)-is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RCR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RCR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RCR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RCR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines.

Science's moral economy of repair: Replication and the circulation of reference.

Responding to the so-called reproducibility crisis, various disciplines have proposed - and some have implemented - changes in research practices and policies. These changes have been aligned with a restricted and rather uniform conceptualization of what science is, and knowledge is made. However, knowledge-making is not a uniform affair. Here, we reflect on a salient fault line running through Wissenschaft (the whole of academic knowledge making, spanning the sciences and humanities), grounded in the relationship between the acts of research and writing, separating research as reporting from research as writing. We do so to demonstrate that replication and replicability cannot be treated as uniformly applicable and that assessment and improvement of research quality invites various tools and strategies. Among those, replication is important, but not omnipresent. Considering these other tools and strategies in context allows us to situate the value of replication for knowledge making as a whole.

Filling in the gaps: The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review.

In this article, we study the use of curricula vitae (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of straightforwardly conveyed, objective evidence on which to base comparisons of past achievements and future potentials. We instead conceptualize the evaluation of biographical evidence as a generative interplay between an historically grown, administrative infrastructure (the CV), and a situated evaluative practice in which the representational function of that infrastructure is itself interpreted and established. The use of CVs in peer review can be seen as a doubly comparative practice, where referees compare not only applicants (among each other or to an imagined ideal of excellence), but also their own experience-based understanding of practice and the conceptual assumptions that underpin CV categories. Empirically, we add to existing literature on peer review by drawing attention to self-correcting mechanisms in the reproduction of the scientific workforce. Conceptually, we distinguish three modalities of how the doubly comparative use of CVs can shape the assessment of applicants: calibration, branching out, and repair. The outcome of this reflexive work should not be seen as predetermined by situational pressures. In fact, bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding.

Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards.

From Eminent Men to Excellent Universities: University Rankings as Calculative Devices.

Global university rankings have become increasingly important 'calculative devices' for assessing the 'quality' of higher education and research. Their ability to make characteristics of universities 'calculable' is here exemplified by the first proper university ranking ever, produced as early as 1910 by the American psychologist James McKeen Cattell. Our paper links the epistemological rationales behind the construction of this ranking to the sociopolitical context in which Cattell operated: an era in which psychology became institutionalized against the backdrop of the eugenics movement, and in which statistics of science became used to counter a perceived decline in 'great men.' Over time, however, the 'eminent man,' shaped foremost by heredity and upbringing, came to be replaced by the excellent university as the emblematic symbol of scientific and intellectual strength. We also show that Cattell's ranking was generative of new forms of the social, traces of which can still be found today in the enactment of 'excellence' in global university rankings.

Accounting for Impact? The Journal Impact Factor and the Making of Biomedical Research in the Netherlands.

The range and types of performance metrics has recently proliferated in academic settings, with bibliometric indicators being particularly visible examples. One field that has traditionally been hospitable towards such indicators is biomedicine. Here the relative merits of bibliometrics are widely discussed, with debates often portraying them as heroes or villains. Despite a plethora of controversies, one of the most widely used indicators in this field is said to be the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). In this article we argue that much of the current debates around researchers' uses of the JIF in biomedicine can be classed as 'folk theories': explanatory accounts told among a community that seldom (if ever) get systematically checked. Such accounts rarely disclose how knowledge production itself becomes more-or-less consolidated around the JIF. Using ethnographic materials from different research sites in Dutch University Medical Centers, this article sheds new empirical and theoretical light on how performance metrics variously shape biomedical research on the 'shop floor.' Our detailed analysis underscores a need for further research into the constitutive effects of evaluative metrics.

[Publication pressure and citation stress; the influence of achievement indicators on scientific practice]. / Publicatiedrang en citatiestress; de invloed van prestatie-indicatoren op wetenschapsbeoefening.

The journal impact factor (JIF) and the Hirsch index, are two widely used parameters for evaluating scientific achievement. The JIF is a parameter which shows the citation score of a journal over the previous two years. The Hirsch index is a simple index to measure the citation performance of individual scientists. These achievement indicators can be used to evaluate research and are thus an indicator for scientific output. Nevertheless, they should not be used as a measurement of scientific quality. Scientific quality not only depends on citation scores, but also on originality, societal and scientific impact, robust methodology and validity and should therefore be evaluated on these parameters. Little is known about the influence that these factors have on science in general and on scientists but there is some evidence suggesting detrimental effects on scientific practice and quality.

Light tries the expert eye: the introduction of photography in nineteenth-century macroscopic neuroanatomy.

It is often argued that photography's scientific inauguration meaningfully coincided with a shift towards the ideal of mechanical objectivity. Values of disinterestedness and precision were readily attributed to photography and were cherished by the emerging field of neurology as well. However, after the publication of the first neuroanatomical atlas to contain photographs, Jules Bernard Luys' Iconographie Photographique des Centres Nerveux (1873), the use of photography in macroscopic neuroanatomy remained rare. The present article sketches this largely overlooked terrain of investigation and will expand on why in macroscopical neuroanatomy photography failed to offer a satisfactory alternative to drawing or engraving.