Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: Recommendations for research funders.

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund.

Estimating measurement equivalence of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire across ethnic groups in the UK.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the extent to which the GHQ-12 exhibits configural, metric and scalar invariance across six ethnic groups in Britain and Northern Ireland, using the UK Household Longitudinal Study (N = 35 410). METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis was carried out on a white British group in order to establish an adequate measurement model. Secondly, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in order to assess measurement invariance. A sensitivity analysis comparing summated and latent means across groups was carried out. Finally, revised estimates of scale reliability were derived using two different methods. RESULTS: A one-factor model including correlated error terms on the negatively phrased items showed superior fit in all ethnic groups. Tests for equal factor loadings and intercepts also showed adequate fit demonstrating metric and scalar invariance. Latent and summated scale estimates of mean group differences were similar for all groups. Scale reliability using McDonald's ω is lower than when using the more conventional Cronbach's α. Reliability across groups is reasonably consistent. CONCLUSIONS: We find that the GHQ-12 does not display obvious bias in regard to ethnic groups in the UK and that valid comparisons across these groups can be made for the purposes of population research. Caution is needed when using as a screening tool for individuals.

Testing the cultural-invariance hypothesis: A global analysis of the relationship between scientific knowledge and attitudes to science.

A substantial body of research has demonstrated that science knowledge is correlated with attitudes towards science, with most studies finding a positive relationship between the two constructs; people who are more knowledgeable about science tend to be more positive about it. However, this evidence base has been almost exclusively confined to high and middle-income democracies, with poorer and less developed nations excluded from consideration. In this study, we conduct the first global investigation of the science knowledge-attitude relationship, using the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor survey. Our results show a positive knowledge-attitude correlation in all but one of the 144 countries investigated. This robust cross-national relationship is consistent across both science literacy and self-assessed measures of science knowledge.

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research.

Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

Exploring public discourses about emerging technologies through statistical clustering of open-ended survey questions.

The primary method by which social scientists describe public opinion about science and technology is to present frequencies from fixed response survey questions and to use multivariate statistical models to predict where different groups stand with regard to perceptions of risk and benefit. Such an approach requires measures of individual preference which can be aligned numerically in an ordinal or, preferably, a continuous manner along an underlying evaluative dimension - generally the standard 5- or 7-point attitude question. The key concern motivating the present paper is that, due to the low salience and "difficult" nature of science for members of the general public, it may not be sensible to require respondents to choose from amongst a small and predefined set of evaluative response categories. Here, we pursue a different methodological approach: the analysis of textual responses to "open-ended" questions, in which respondents are asked to state, in their own words, what they understand by the term "DNA." To this textual data we apply the statistical clustering procedures encoded in the Alceste software package to detect and classify underlying discourse and narrative structures. We then examine the extent to which the classifications, thus derived, can aid our understanding of how the public develop and use "everyday" images of, and talk about, biomedicine to structure their evaluations of emerging technologies.

Social identity and racial disparities in science literacy.

Research on African-Americans' relationship with science, while relatively sparse, in general suggests higher levels of alienation than among their White counterparts, whether in the form of less positive attitudes to science, or lower scientific literacy. In this article, we leverage social identity theory to examine the role of racial social identity and ingroup evaluation as putative mechanisms that produce these disparities. We use data from the General Social Survey, pooled over three waves, as the basis for our investigation. The results of the analysis indicate that, when controlling for other covariates, there is no statistically significant difference in the effect of racial self-identification on science knowledge among African-Americans and Whites. However, we provide evidence that the effect of favourable ingroup evaluation on science knowledge differs in these two groups, being more positive for African-Americans compared to Whites.

Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics.

Previous research shows that public trust in scientists is often bound up with the messages that they convey and the context in which they communicate. However, in the current study, we examine how the public perceives scientists based on the characteristics of scientists themselves, irrespective of their scientific message and its context. Using a quota sample of U.S. adults, we investigate how scientists' sociodemographic; partisan; and professional characteristics affect preferences and trust towards them as a scientific adviser to local government. We find that scientists' party identification and professional characteristics appear to be prominent to understand public preferences towards them.

Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers.

BACKGROUND: Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies. METHODS: We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland).  We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree. RESULTS: In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans. CONCLUSION: To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Enabling and constraining successful reablement: Individual and neighbourhood factors.

Using multilevel logistic regression to analyse management data of reablement episodes collected by Essex County Council, a UK local authority, this article identifies constraining and enabling factors for successful reablement. Overall, 59.5% of reablement clients were classed as able to care for themselves when assessed after 13 weeks following the reablement intervention (N = 8,118). Several age-related, disability, referral, and social factors were found to constrain reablement, but some of the largest constraining effects were neighbourhood deprivation as measured through the Index of Multiple Deprivation and, particularly, unfavourable geodemographic profiles as measured through Experian Mosaic consumer classifications. The results suggest that in order to optimise reablement, programmes should consider broader social and environmental influences on reablement rather than only individual and organisational aspects. Reablement might also be better tailored and intensified for client groups with particular underlying disabilities and for those displaying specific geodemographic characteristics.

Religion and the public ethics of stem-cell research: Attitudes in Europe, Canada and the United States.

We examine international public opinion towards stem-cell research during the period when the issue was at its most contentious. We draw upon representative sample surveys in Europe and North America, fielded in 2005 and find that the majority of people in Europe, Canada and the United States supported stem-cell research, providing it was tightly regulated, but that there were key differences between the geographical regions in the relative importance of different types of ethical position. In the U.S., moral acceptability was more influential as a driver of support for stem-cell research; in Europe the perceived benefit to society carried more weight; and in Canada the two were almost equally important. We also find that public opinion on stem-cell research was more strongly associated with religious convictions in the U.S. than in Canada and Europe, although many strongly religious citizens in all regions approved of stem-cell research. We conclude that if anything public opinion or 'public ethics' are likely to play an increasingly important role in framing policy and regulatory regimes for sensitive technologies in the future.

Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics.

The use of genetics in medical research is one of the most important avenues currently being explored to enhance human health. For some, the idea that we can intervene in the mechanisms of human existence at such a fundamental level can be at minimum worrying and at most repugnant. In particular, religious doctrines are likely to collide with the rapidly advancing capability for science to make such interventions. The key ingredient for acceptance of genetics, on the other hand, is prototypically assumed to be scientific literacy - familiarity and understanding of the critical facts and methods of science. However, this binary opposition between science and religion runs counter to what is often found in practice. In this paper, we examine the association between religiosity, science knowledge and attitudes to medical genetics amongst the British public. In particular, we test the hypothesis that religion acts as a 'perceptual filter' through which citizens acquire and use scientific knowledge in the formation of attitudes towards medical genetics in various ways.

Understanding support for complementary and alternative medicine in general populations: use and perceived efficacy.

Proponents of complementary and alternative medicine argue that these treatments can be used with great effect in addition to, and sometimes instead of, conventional medicine, a position which has drawn sustained opposition from those who advocate an evidence-based approach to the evaluation of treatment efficacy. Using recent survey data from the United Kingdom, this article seeks to establish a clearer understanding of the nature of the public's relationship with complementary and alternative medicine within the general population by focusing on beliefs about the perceived effectiveness of homeopathy, in addition to its reported use. Using recent data from the United Kingdom, we initially demonstrate that reported use and perceived effectiveness are far from coterminous and argue that for a proper understanding of the motivations underpinning public support of complementary and alternative medicine, consideration of both reported use and perceived effectiveness is necessary. We go on to demonstrate that although the profile of homeopathy users differs from those who support this form of medicine, neither outcome is dependent upon peoples' levels of knowledge about science. Instead, the results suggest a far greater explanatory role for need and concerns about conventional medicine.

Incommensurable worldviews? Is public use of complementary and alternative medicines incompatible with support for science and conventional medicine?

Proponents of controversial Complementary and Alternative Medicines, such as homeopathy, argue that these treatments can be used with great effect in addition to, and sometimes instead of, 'conventional' medicine. In doing so, they accept the idea that the scientific approach to the evaluation of treatment does not undermine use of and support for some of the more controversial CAM treatments. For those adhering to the scientific canon, however, such efficacy claims lack the requisite evidential basis from randomised controlled trials. It is not clear, however, whether such opposition characterises the views of the general public. In this paper we use data from the 2009 Wellcome Monitor survey to investigate public use of and beliefs about the efficacy of a prominent and controversial CAM within the United Kingdom, homeopathy. We proceed by using Latent Class Analysis to assess whether it is possible to identify a sub-group of the population who are at ease in combining support for science and conventional medicine with use of CAM treatments, and belief in the efficacy of homeopathy. Our results suggest that over 40% of the British public maintain positive evaluations of both homeopathy and conventional medicine simultaneously. Explanatory analyses reveal that simultaneous support for a controversial CAM treatment and conventional medicine is, in part, explained by a lack of scientific knowledge as well as concerns about the regulation of medical research.

An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: the case of GM food.

Few scholars doubt the importance of trust in explaining variation in public perception of technological risk. Relatively little, however, is known about the particular types of judgments that people use in granting or withholding trust. This article presents findings from an empirical study that explores several dimensions of trust relevant for citizens' judgments of scientists involved in the development of GM food. The relationship between particular dimensions of trust and perceptions of GM food risk is also explored, using structural equation modeling. Results suggest that trust judgments based on the perception of shared values are most important in relation to GM food risk, but that judgments about scientists' technical competence are also important.

GM foods and the misperception of risk perception.

Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute-benefit-appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.