Background

Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?

Methods

With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.

Results

Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.

Conclusions

These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.

中文翻译：

---

研究诚信官员对与研究不当行为相关的研究实践的看法的调查研究

背景

对研究完整性的研究往往集中在研究不当行为的频率和可能诱使某人犯下研究不当行为的因素。对第一个问题的确切答案一直难以捉摸，但仍然很清楚，任何研究不端行为都太多了。对第二个问题的答案是如此多样，提出一个不同的问题可能会很有成效：研究如何进行才能使研究不端行为发生？

方法

考虑到这个问题，美国大学协会的62名成员的研究诚信官员（RIO）被邀请完成一份关于他们最近一次发现研究不当行为的简短调查。受访者被问及在他们的研究不当行为中是否存在一种或多种良好的研究实践（例如，公开性和透明性，保持良好的研究记录）。

结果

二十四（24）位受访者（39％回应率）表示，他们已经处理了至少一项研究不当行为的发现，并回答了调查问题。这些RIO的一半以上报告说，他们的研究不当行为案例是在以下环境中发生的：列出的十项优良研究实践中至少有九种存在缺陷。

结论

这些结果不是不良做法的因果关系的证据，但是可以说，在遵循优良做法的研究环境中，如果不是不可能的话，从事研究不当行为将更加困难。