Background

This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices.

Methods

Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices.

Results

Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known.

Conclusions

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚大学研究行为准则可以更强烈地支持负责任的研究实践

背景

本研究旨在调查澳大利亚大学研究行为准则对负责任研究实践的认可程度。

方法

从公共网站获得活跃于健康和医学研究的 25 所澳大利亚大学的研究行为准则，并针对 19 个问题进行审核，以评估它们 (1) 对研究诚信、研究质量和研究不端行为的定义有多强烈，(2) 要求研究得到适当的伦理委员会的批准，(3) 认可 9 项负责任的研究实践，以及 (4) 阻止 5 项有问题的研究实践。

结果

总体而言，问题中涵盖的 19 种做法中有 10 种（IQR 9 到 12）被提及、弱认可或强烈认可。9 项负责任的研究实践中有 5 到 8 项被提及，弱或强烈认可，3 项有问题的研究实践被劝阻。结果按八人组 ( n =  8) 和其他 ( n = 17) 大学。具体而言，(1) 6 个 (75%) 八人组和 11 个 (65%) 其他研究行为准则定义了研究诚信，4 个 (50%) 和 8 个 (47%) 定义了研究质量，7 个 (88%) 和16 人 (94%) 定义了研究不端行为。(2) 所有规范都需要对人类和动物研究进行伦理批准。(3) 所有规范都要求声明利益冲突，但其他研究实践的认可程度存在差异。最普遍认可的做法是确保对研究人员进行研究诚信培训 [8 (100%) 和 16 (94%)] 以及公开研究数据 [6 (75%) 和 12 (71%)]。最不普遍认可的做法是公开提供分析代码 [0 (0%) 和 0 (0%)] 以及注册分析协议 [0 (0%) 和 1 (6%)]。(4) 大多数法规不鼓励伪造数据 [5 (63%) 和 15 (88%)]，选择性删除或修改数据 [5 (63%) 和 15 (88%)]，以及选择性报告结果 [3 (38%) 和 15 (88%)]。在知道结果后，没有代码阻止 p-hacking 或假设。

结论

澳大利亚大学研究行为准则可以更强烈地支持负责任的研究实践。我们的研究结果可能无法推广到规模较小的大学，或那些不活跃于健康和医学研究的大学。