Academic research integrity: Exploring researchers’ perceptions of responsibilities and enablers

References

• American Association for the Advancement of Science – AAAS. 2000. The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity: A Report of a Conference, April 10–11. Accessed 29 March 2019. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ana, J., T. Koehlmoos, R. Smith, and L. Yan. 2013. “Research Misconduct in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” PLoS Medicine 10 (3): e1001315. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M., M. Shaw, N. Steneck, E. Konkle, and T. Kamata. 2013. “Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession.” In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, edited by M. Paulsen, 217–261. Vol. 28. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S., A. S. Horn, K. R. Risbey, E. A. Ronning, R. De Vries, and B. C. Martinson. 2007a. “What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have to Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists.” Academic Medicine 82 (9): 853–860. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S., E. A. Ronning, R. De Vries, and B. C. Martinson. 2007b. “The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships.” Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4): 437–461. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antes, A., S. Murphy, E. Waples, M. Mumford, R. Brown, S. Connelly, and L. Devenport. 2009. “A Meta-analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences.” Ethics and Behavior 19 (5): 379–402. doi:10.1080/10508420903035380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. 2018. “National Health and Medical Research Council.” Accessed 14 May 2019. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/the-australian-code-for-the-responsible-conduct-of-research-2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, H., and J. Steenkamp. 2001. “Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-national Investigation.” Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 143–156. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berggren, C., and S. F. Karabag. 2019. “Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control.” Research Policy 48: 428–443. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, S. 2001. “Mentors, Advisors and Supervisors: Their Role in Teaching Responsible Research Conduct.” Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (4): 455–468. doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0002-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. M. 2015. “Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples?” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22 (3): 148–161. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, K., B. Wijnen, I. Hollin, E. Janssen, J. Bridges, S. Evers, and M. Hiligsmann. 2016. “Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.” PharmacoEconomics 34: 1195–1209. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couch, S., and S. Dodd. 2005. “Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Issues in Higher Education.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 97 (3): 20–26.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. 2019. “An Ethics Of The System: Talking to Scientists about Research Integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (4): 1235-1253. doi:.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinan, S. 2019. “Duke University to Pay $112.5 Million Settlement for Faked Research.” Washington Times, March 25. Accessed 14 May 2019. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/duke-pay-1125m-settlement-faked-research
   Google Scholar
• Dolnicar, S., and B. Gruen. 2007. “Cross-cultural Differences in Survey Response and Patterns.” International Marketing Review 24 (2): 127–143. doi:10.1108/02651330710741785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyachenko, T., R. W. Reczek, and G. M. Allenby. 2014. “Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-worst Choice Tasks.” Marketing Science 33 (6): 828–848. doi:10.1287/mksc.2014.0870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. 2009. “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS One 4: e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., J. P. A. Ioannidis, and S. Goodman. 2018. “Improving the Integrity of Published Science: An Expanded Taxonomy of Retractions and Corrections.” European Journal of Clinical Investigation 48: e12898. doi:10.1111/eci.12898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, C., A. Fried, and L. Feldman. 2009. “Graduate Socialization in the Responsible Conduct of Research: A National Survey on the Research Ethics Training Experiences of Psychology Doctoral Students.” Ethics and Behavior 19 (6): 496–518. doi:10.1080/10508420903275283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankel, M. 1989. “Professional Codes: Why, How, and with What Impact.” Journal of Business Ethics 8 (2): 109–115. doi:10.1007/BF00382575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgini, V., J. T. Mecca, C. Gibson, K. Medeiros, M. D. Mumford, S. Connelly, and L. D. Devenport. 2015. “Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22 (3): 123–138. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.955607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J., and B. R. Martin. 2019. “Towards a Taxonomy of Research Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research.” Research Policy 48: 414–427. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haven, T. L., J. K. Tijdink, B. C. Martinson, and L. M. Bouter. 2019. “Perceptions of Research Integrity Climate Differ between Academic Ranks and Disciplinary Fields: Results from a Survey among Academic Researchers in Amsterdam.” PLoS ONE 14 (1): e0210599. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G., G. J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Rev. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede Insights. Accessed 2 May 2019. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries
   Google Scholar
• Honig, B., J. Lampel, D. Siegel, and P. Drnevich. 2014. “Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?” Journal of Management Studies 51 (1): 118–142. doi:10.1111/joms.2014.51.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., and W. Halffman. 2019. “The Extent and Causes of Academic Text Recycling or ‘Self-plagiarism’.” Research Policy 48: 492–502. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseini, M., M. Hilhorst, I. De Beaufort, and D. Fanelli. 2018. “Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24: 189–206. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamakura, W. A., and G. J. Russell. 1989. “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structuring.” Journal of Marketing Research 26: 379–390. doi:10.1177/002224378902600401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminskii, A. 2012. “The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.” Physics Status Solidi A 209 (1): 3–4. doi:10.1002/pssa.201221902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. A., G. Soutar, and J. J. Louviere. 2007. “Measuring Values Using Best–worst Scaling: The LOV Example.” Psychology and Marketing 24 (12): 1043–1058. doi:10.1002/()1520-6793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J., I. Lings, T. Islam, S. Gudergan, and T. Flynn. 2013. “An Introduction to the Application of (Case 1) Best–worst Scaling in Marketing Research.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 30: 292–303. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J., T. Flynn, and A. Marley. 2015. Best–Worst Scaling; Theory, Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malek, J. 2010. “To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 17 (3): 115–129. doi:10.1080/08989621003791929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. 2013. “Whither Research Integrity? Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism and Coercive Citation in an Age of Research Assessment.” Research Policy 42 (5): 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinson, B., M. Anderson, and R. de Vries. 2005. “Scientists Behaving Badly.” Nature 435: 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka, 105–142. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3: 672–682. doi:10.2307/2084686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1942. “A Note on Science and Democracy.” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 (1–2): 115–126.
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2018. “KNAW, NFU, NWO; TO2-Federatie; NAUAS, VS, VSNU.” Accessed 14 September 2019. https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documents/Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D., and A. Shamoo. 2011. “The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 18 (2): 71–75. doi:10.1080/08989621.2011.557296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D., and Z. Master. 2013. “Policies and Initiatives Aimed at Addressing Research Misconduct in High-Income Countries.” PLoS Medicine 10 (3): e1001406. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sefcik, L., M. Striepe, and J. Yorke. 2019. “Mapping the Landscape of Academic Integrity Education Programs: What Approaches are Effective?” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1604942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, D., and P. Satalkar. 2018. “Researchers’ Interpretations of Research Integrity: A Qualitative Study.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 25 (2): 79–93. doi:10.1080/08989621.2017.1413940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. 2010. Accessed 14 May 2019. https://wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement
   Google Scholar
• Steneck, N. 2006. “Fostering Integrity in Research: Definitions, Current Knowledge, and Future Directions.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12: 53–74. doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steneck, N. 2013. “Global Research Integrity Training.” Science 340: 552–553. doi:10.1126/science.1236373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swait, J., and J. J. Louviere. 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30: 305–314. doi:10.1177/002224379303000303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurstone, L. L. 1927. “A Law of Comparative Judgment.” Psychological Review 34: 273–286. doi:10.1037/h0070288.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, J. P., Y. N. Lee, and L. Tang. 2019. “Pathogenic Organization in Science: Division of Labor and Retractions.” Research Policy 48: 444–461. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedel, M., and W. Kamakura. 2000. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar