Abstract
Unavailability of published data and studies focused on young researchers in Europe and research integrity issues reveals that clear understanding and stance on this subject within European area is lacking. Our study provides information on attitudes and experiences of European researchers at early career stages (doctoral and postdoctoral level), based on a limited sample of respondents (n = 27). The study provides both quantitative and qualitative results for the examined issues. The data suggest that awareness and interest of the younger researchers surveyed in research integrity issues is high, however, it is often based on self-initiatives, with many of the respondents not having adequate training or any possibility to obtain it. Our attitude survey conducted within the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers indicates that only 22 % of respondents had an opportunity to obtain relevant training (significantly less than in a study conducted in the U.S.), and that only one third believed that institutions and supervisors regularly paid attention to it. Further, we noted certain differences between disciplines. The study also reveals that many younger researchers felt they faced problems due to the misconduct of their senior colleagues and the existing institutional culture. The results of the study indicate a need for better prevention mechanisms, training and raising awareness activities. Preferably, junior researchers should be given an active role in shaping the integrity culture. It should be noted that the presented results should be considered in the context of the limitations stemming from the small-scale survey. This paper encourages further research activities on research integrity practices to provide stronger evidence on the attitudes and experiences of young researchers in Europe and other parts of the world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The publication (Krstić 2015) discusses the contribution of professional networks to research integrity and ethics. The survey presented in this paper was mentioned only in the context of a better understanding of the matter (related to professional networks), but it was announced that the fuller presentation of the survey results was forthcoming in a new paper. This paper presents the results announced in the cited publication.
The data is found in the presentation “Ethics for the Next Generation”, presented by P. Langlais at the 16th Annual Teaching Renewal Conference, University of Missouri at Columbia in 2006. An unpublished report “Teaching Research Ethics: An Institutional Change Model” from Western Michigan University (Hartmann and Mullins 2003) was indicated as the data source.
An option that exists in some European countries—a PhD candidate working outside the university, often in a non-academic sector.
References
Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., & Risbey, K. R. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.
Arda, B. (2012). Publication ethics from the perspective of PhD students of health sciences: A limited experience. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 213–222.
Ateş, G., Holländer, K., Koltcheva, N., Krstić, S., & Parada, F. (2011). Eurodoc survey I: The first Eurodoc survey on doctoral candidates in twelve European countries. Brussels: Eurodoc.
Beisiegel, U. (2010). Research integrity and publication ethics. Atherosclerosis, 212(2), 383–385.
Bird, S. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 455–468.
Brounéus, F., Larsdotter, K., Andersson, U., & Lindholm, M. (2014). Does media coverage of research misconduct affect public confidence in science? Euroscientist. http://euroscientist.com/2014/04/does-media-coverage-of-research-misconduct-affect-public-confidence-in-science/. Accessed 2 May 2014.
Dorey, E. (2010). Facing up to fraud. Chemistry & Industry Magazine, 2. http://www.soci.org/Chemistry-and-Industry/CnI-Data/2010/2/Facing-up-to-fraud. Accessed 1 Mar 2014.
European Science Foundation—ESF. (2010). Fostering research integrity in Europe. Executive report. European Science Foundation. www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity.html. Accessed 22 Feb 2011.
Franzen, M., Rödder, S., & Weingart, P. (2007). Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. Institutional changes, rather than individual motivations, encourage misconduct. EMBO Reports, 8(1), 3–7.
Grant, B. (2010). PhD student admits misconduct. The Scientist. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28901/title/PhD-student-admits-misconduct/. Accessed 1 Mar 2014.
Gray, P. W., & Jordan, S. R. (2012). Supervisors and academic integrity: Supervisors as exemplars and mentors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 299–311.
IDEA Consult. (2010). Study on mobility patterns and career paths of EU researchers (Final technical report). http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/MORE_final_report_final_version.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2011.
Jaffer, U., & Cameron, A. E. P. (2006). Deceit and fraud in medical research. International Journal of Surgery, 4(2), 122–126.
Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 870–875.
Kirby, K., & Houle, F. A. (2004). Ethics and the welfare of the physics profession. Physics Today, 57(11), 42–46.
Krstić, S. (2015). Professional networks contributing to research integrity and ethics: From cooperation to innovation. In N. H. Steneck, M. S. Anderson, S. Kleinert, & T. Mayer (Eds.), Integrity in the Global Research Arena. World Scientific (forthcoming).
Langlais, P. J. (2006a). Ethics for the next generation. The chronicle of higher education, 22, B11.
Langlais, P. J. (2006b). How do we teach ethics. Quest, 9(1), 18–23.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.
Miller, G. (2010). Misconduct by postdocs leads to retraction of papers. Science, 329(5999), 1583.
Mitchell, T., & Carroll, J. (2008). Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors. Nurse Education Today, 28(2), 218–226.
Nilstun, T., Löfmark, R., & Lundqvist, A. (2010). Scientific dishonesty—Questionnaire to doctoral students in Sweden. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 315–318.
Nowotny, H., & Exner, P. (2013). Improving ERC ethical standards. Science, 341(6150), 1043.
Salwén, H. (2014). The Swedish Research Council’s definition of ‘scientific misconduct’: A critique. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2.
Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science, 340, 552–553.
Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1458–1465.
Swazey, J. C., Anderson, M., & Lewis, S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 31, 543–553.
Titus, S. L., & Ballou, J. M. (2014). Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct of research behaviors: Who’s responsible? Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 221–235.
Wagena, E. (2005). The scandal of unfair behaviour of senior faculty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(5), 308.
Wright, D., Titus, S., & Cornelson, J. (2008). Mentoring and research misconduct: An analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 323–336.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krstić, S.B. Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 1181–1196 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z