Background

Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.

Results

Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.

Conclusions

Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.

Study registration

https://osf.io/33v3m

中文翻译：

---

重新思考研究中的成功，诚信和文化（第2部分）-关于科学问题的多主体定性研究

背景

在过去的几年中，研究不端行为和可疑的研究实践已成为越来越多的关注的主题。但是，尽管有大量的研究可用，但很少有实证研究也包括非研究者利益相关者的观点。

方法

我们与决策者，出资者，机构负责人，编辑或出版商，研究诚信办公室成员，研究诚信社区成员，实验室技术人员，研究人员，研究学生以及改变职业以进行咨询的前研究人员进行了半结构化访谈和焦点小组讨论。科学中的成功，正直和责任等主题。我们使用佛兰德生物医学景观作为基准，以便能够掌握系统设置中相互作用和互补的参与者的观点。

结果

鉴于研究结果的广度，我们将研究结果分为两篇文章，将当前的研究重点放在影响完整性和研究文化的问题上。我们首先发现，对于影响研究完整性和文化的问题，不同的参与者有不同的看法。问题要么与人格和态度有关，要么与研究人员的工作环境有关。人们经常认为那些被描述为成功必不可少的要素（在副论文中）通过破坏研究文化和研究完整性来加剧研究环境的问题。即使所有参与者都同意需要解决当前的研究环境，但参与者通常并不感到负有责任，也没有能力发起变革。反而，

结论

我们的发现与最近的辩论产生了共鸣，并推断出一些可能有助于推进讨论的行动要点。首先，研究完整性辩论必须重新审视和解决评估研究人员的方式。第二，促进更好的科学发展的方法需要解决研究环境对研究完整性和研究文化的影响，而不是利用单个研究者的依从性。最后，必须优先考虑参与者之间的对话和共同的决策，以确保掌握整个研究系统的观点。理解这些观点之间的关系和相互依赖性是能够解决科学问题的关键。

研究注册

https://osf.io/33v3m