13 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Lex M. Bouter [8]Lex Bouter [5]
  1.  4
    Ranking Major and Minor Research Misbehaviors: Results From a Survey Among Participants of Four World Conferences on Research Integrity.Gerben ter Riet, Brian C. Martinson, Nils Axelsen, Joeri Tijdink & Lex M. Bouter - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
    BackgroundCodes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more important due to their much higher prevalence. Little is known about what the most frequent research misbehaviors are and what their impact is if they occur.MethodsA survey was conducted among 1353 attendees of international research integrity conferences. They were asked to score 60 research misbehaviors according to their views on and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  2.  6
    What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.Lex Bouter - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2363-2369.
    In many countries attention for fostering research integrity started with a misconduct case that got a lot of media exposure. But there is an emerging consensus that questionable research practices are more harmful due to their high prevalence. QRPs have in common that they can help to make study results more exciting, more positive and more statistically significant. That makes them tempting to engage in. Research institutions have the duty to empower their research staff to steer away from QRPs and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  1
    Researchers’ Perceptions of Research Misbehaviours: A Mixed Methods Study Among Academic Researchers in Amsterdam.Lex M. Bouter, Gerben ter Riet, Guy Widdershoven, H. Roeline Pasman, Joeri K. Tijdink & Tamarinde L. Haven - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.MethodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  4
    Value Pluralism in Research Integrity.Lex Bouter, Tamarinde Haven, Jeroen de Ridder & Rik Peels - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  4
    Researchers’ Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.Tamarinde Haven, H. Roeline Pasman, Guy Widdershoven, Lex Bouter & Joeri Tijdink - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3017-3036.
    The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We investigated academic researchers’ perceptions on this through focus group interviews. We recruited researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center to participate in focus group discussions that consisted of researchers from similar academic ranks and disciplinary fields. We asked participants to reflect on the characteristics of a responsible research climate, the barriers they (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  3
    Should Research Misconduct Be Criminalized?Rafael Dal-Ré, Lex M. Bouter, Pim Cuijpers, Christian Gluud & Søren Holm - 2020 - Research Ethics 16 (1-2):1-12.
    For more than 25 years, research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism —although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of cond...
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  35
    Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity: Brazil, Rio de Janeiro. 31 May - 3 June 2015.Lex Bouter, Melissa S. Anderson, Ana Marusic, Sabine Kleinert, Susan Zimmerman, Paulo S. L. Beirão, Laura Beranzoli, Giuseppe Di Capua, Silvia Peppoloni, Maria Betânia de Freitas Marques, Adriana Sousa, Claudia Rech, Torunn Ellefsen, Adele Flakke Johannessen, Jacob Holen, Raymond Tait, Jillon Van der Wall, John Chibnall, James M. DuBois, Farida Lada, Jigisha Patel, Stephanie Harriman, Leila Posenato Garcia, Adriana Nascimento Sousa, Cláudia Maria Correia Borges Rech, Oliveira Patrocínio, Raphaela Dias Fernandes, Laressa Lima Amâncio, Anja Gillis, David Gallacher, David Malwitz, Tom Lavrijssen, Mariusz Lubomirski, Malini Dasgupta, Katie Speanburg, Elizabeth C. Moylan, Maria K. Kowalczuk, Nikolas Offenhauser, Markus Feufel, Niklas Keller, Volker Bähr, Diego Oliveira Guedes, Douglas Leonardo Gomes Filho, Vincent Larivière, Rodrigo Costas, Daniele Fanelli, Mark William Neff, Aline Carolina de Oliveira Machado Prata, Limbanazo Matandika, Sonia Maria Ramos de Vasconcelos & Karina de A. Rocha - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (Suppl 1).
    Table of contentsI1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research IntegrityConcurrent Sessions:1. Countries' systems and policies to foster research integrityCS01.1 Second time around: Implementing and embedding a review of responsible conduct of research policy and practice in an Australian research-intensive universitySusan Patricia O'BrienCS01.2 Measures to promote research integrity in a university: the case of an Asian universityDanny Chan, Frederick Leung2. Examples of research integrity education programmes in different countriesCS02.1 Development of a state-run “cyber education program of research ethics” in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  1
    Steps Toward Preregistration of Research on Research Integrity.Lex M. Bouter, Nicholas H. Steneck, Wilco H. M. Emons & Klaas Sijtsma - 2021 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1).
    BackgroundA proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity. This paper reports on the degree to which abstracts of the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity reported on preregistered research.MethodsConference registration data on participants presenting a paper or a poster at 6th WCRI were made available to the research team. Because the data set was too small for inferential statistics this report is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Explaining Variance in Perceived Research Misbehavior: Results From a Survey Among Academic Researchers in Amsterdam.Frans Oort, Lex Bouter, Brian Martinson, Joeri Tijdink & Tamarinde Haven - 2021 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1).
    BackgroundConcerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?MethodsFrom May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  2
    Correction To: Ranking Major and Minor Research Misbehaviors: Results From a Survey Among Participants of Four World Conferences on Research Integrity.Gerben ter Riet, Brian C. Martinson, Nils Axelsen, Joeri Tijdink & Lex M. Bouter - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  7
    The Effects of Industry Funding and Positive Outcomes in the Interpretation of Clinical Trial Results: A Randomized Trial Among Dutch Psychiatrists.Joeri K. Tijdink, Yvo M. Smulders, Lex M. Bouter & Christiaan H. Vinkers - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-8.
    Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  3
    Determinants of Citation in Epidemiological Studies on Phthalates: A Citation Analysis.Miriam J. E. Urlings, Bram Duyx, Gerard M. H. Swaen, Lex M. Bouter & Maurice P. A. Zeegers - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3053-3067.
    Citing of previous publications is an important factor in knowledge development. Because of the great amount of publications available, only a selection of studies gets cited, for varying reasons. If the selection of citations is associated with study outcome this is called citation bias. We will study determinants of citation in a broader sense, including e.g. study design, journal impact factor or the funding source of the publication. As a case study we assess which factors drive citation in the human (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Selective Citation in the Literature on Swimming in Chlorinated Water and Childhood Asthma: A Network Analysis.Maurice P. Zeegers, Lex M. Bouter, Gerard M. H. Swaen, Miriam J. E. Urlings & Bram Duyx - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
    BackgroundKnowledge development depends on an unbiased representation of the available evidence. Selective citation may distort this representation. Recently, some controversy emerged regarding the possible impact of swimming on childhood asthma, raising the question about the role of selective citation in this field. Our objective was to assess the occurrence and determinants of selective citation in scientific publications on the relationship between swimming in chlorinated pools and childhood asthma.MethodsWe identified scientific journal articles on this relationship via a systematic literature search. The (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark