Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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.

Responsible research and innovation, or RRI, is a concept that aims to bring together society and science for a better future. There are six key elements of RRI: public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics and governance. Higher Education Institutions and Responsible Research and Innovation (HEIRRI) project aimed to bring the concept of RRI into the educational system. Using state-of-the-art review of good practices, HEIRRI team developed 10 training programs on RRI for different higher education institution educational levels, including a summer school and a massive open online course (MOOC). We conducted pilot of the trainings and evaluated participants' experiences. Satisfaction with HEIRRI training programs on responsible research and innovation was high, both for participants and for the trainers, and trainings raised awareness of RRI. Participants' feedback was used to identify areas that need improvement and provided for recommendations for final versions of the HEIRRI training programs. In order to equip researchers with skills to recognize and apply RRI values, RRI should be included in their education. HEIRRI training is suitable for a range of different disciplines, including forensic science, and is free to use and adjust for specific contexts (available from: https://rri-tools.eu/heirri-training-programmes ). Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2021.1970319 .

Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science. Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science.

In this paper, we introduce the Societal Readiness (SR) Thinking Tool to aid researchers and innovators in developing research projects with greater responsiveness to societal values, needs, and expectations. The need for societally-focused approaches to research and innovation—complementary to Technology Readiness (TR) frameworks—is presented. Insights from responsible research and innovation (RRI) concepts and practice, organized across critical stages of project-life cycles are discussed with reference to the development of the SR Thinking Tool. The tool is designed to complement not only shortfalls in TR approaches, but also improve upon other efforts to integrate RRI, sustainability, and design thinking in research and innovation cycles. Operationalization and early-stage user tests of the Tool are reported, along with discussion of potential future iterations and applications.

Across the European research area and beyond, efforts are being mobilized to align research and innovation processes and products with societal values and needs, and to create mechanisms for inclusive priority setting and knowledge production. A central concern is how to foster a culture of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) among scientists and engineers. This paper focuses on RRI teaching at higher education institutions. On the basis of interviews and reviews of academic and policy documents, it highlights the generic aspects of teaching aimed at invoking a sense of care and societal obligation, and provides a set of exemplary cases of RRI-related teaching. It argues that the Aristotelian concept of phronesis can capture core properties of the objectives of RRI-related teaching activities. Teaching should nurture the students’ capacity in terms of practical wisdom, practical ethics, or administrative ability in order to enable them to act virtuously and responsibly in contexts which are often characterized by uncertainty, contention, and controversy.

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.