1 research integrity policies: an evaluation of accessibility & usefulness rebecca ann lind,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Research Integrity Policies:An Evaluation of Accessibility & Usefulness
Rebecca Ann Lind, Ginnifer L. Mastarone, Nathan Earixson, Korin Isotalo Hunt, Jill Caravelli, Sarah E. Millermaier, Brenda
Russell 2009 Research Conference on Research Integrity
University of Illinois at Chicago
2
Acknowledgment The project described was supported by
Grant Number R01NR009967 from the National Institute of Nursing Research and the Office of Research Integrity (Department of Health and Human Services); Lind, PI.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Nursing Research, the National Institutes of Health, or the Office of Research Integrity.
No Conflicts of Interest to disclose
3
Topics
Intro & Research Questions Method Results Discussion/Q&A
4
Intro & research questions
Larry Rhoades (2003): minimal vs. useful
Research Questions (1) How accessible are universities’ research
integrity policies? (2) How useful are universities’ research
integrity policies? Key Resource: CHPS Consulting (2000)
5
Method (1/2)
Random Sample: 100 NIH-funded institutions 100 NSF-funded institutions
165 Policies obtained: 84 NIH (11 no policy; 5 unable to determine)
81 NSF (17 no policy; 2 unable to determine)
6
Method (2/2)
Content analysis System based on Lind (2005), CHPS
(2000) 650 variables, most present/absent 21 topic areas; 5 dimensions 93% intercoder reliability
Data Analysis Calculation of scores across topic
areas Frequency analysis
7
Accessibility from home page Mean: 3.81 SD: 0.94
Level of difficulty Easy (2-3) n=48 Medium (4) n=66 Hard (≥5) n=21
(*30 policies not accessible for coding: not posted, intranet only, links broken, etc.)
# Clicks
Freq. %
2 7 5.2
3 41 30.4
4 66 48.9
5 17 12.6
6 1 0.7
7 2 1.5
8 1 0.7135* 100
8
Usefulness of policies
Five main dimensions Setting the Stage Ensuring Fairness Respondent & Complainant Inquiry & Investigation Outcomes
9
1. Setting the stage (M=0.48/ SD=0.17)
Definition of RM (0.65/0.20) Reporting of Allegations
(0.49/0.19) Pursuing the Allegation (0.32/0.22) Interim Admin. Action (0.65/0.46) Mentoring (0.15/0.27) Time Considerations (0.65/0.30)
10
2. Ensuring fairness (0.53/ 0.24)
Maintaining Confidentiality (0.54/0.23)
Conflicts of Interest (0.45/0.25) Appropriate Expertise (0.61/0.43)
11
3. Respondent-complainant (0.76/ 0.23)
Rights of Respondent (0.89/0.19) Restoration of Respondent’s
Reputation (0.58/0.38) Complainant Rights & Protection
(0.81/0.25)
12
4. Inquiry & investigation process (0.73/0.16)
Appointing the Inq/Inv Committees (0.86/0.20) (0.77/0.27)
Conducting the Inq/Inv (0.80/0.20) (0.84/0.21)
Inq/Inv Report Content (0.92/0.28) (0.97/0.17)
13
5. Outcomes (0.50/0.22)
Decision Makers & Process (0.40/0.31)
Sanctions (0.77/0.24) Appeals (0.32/0.38)
14
Policies earning high scores
5 Dimensions:1. Setting the Stage
(high: ≥mean, 0.48)2. Ensuring Fairness
(0.53)3. Respondent &
Complainant (0.76)4. Inquiry &
Investigation (0.73)5. Outcomes (0.50)
# High Freq. %
5 20 12.1
4 47 28.5
3 26 15.8
2 21 12.7
1 23 13.9
0 28 17.0
165 100
15
Discussion: Accessibility
Policies fairly accessible 140 posted on Internet (70.0% of total
sample; 84.8% of obtained policies) Average of 3-4 clicks from home page
Not always easy to find!
Unable to obtain 35 policies 28 no policy; 7 unable to determine
(17.5% of total sample)
16
Discussion: Usefulness Policy usefulness varies widely
Across institutions Across topic areas
Relative strengths: respondent rights, appointing committees, conducting inq/inv, committee reports, complainant rights & protection
Relative weaknesses: mentoring, appeals, pursuing allegation, COI
17
Discussion: Future research Continued analysis of this dataset Researchers’ knowledge,
understanding, evaluation of RM policies
Relationship between policies and researchers’ understanding of RM and processes
RM sensitivity (RCR Sensitivity) Relationship between policies and
efficacy of RM processes Institutional processes related to
adopting/adapting ORI’s sample policy Expanding to other RCR domains
19
Excerpt: RM policy codesheet
1.1 Does the definition of research misconduct include FFP? 1=Yes; 2=No
1.2 Which of the following are defined? .01 Fabrication .02 Falsification .03 Plagiarism
1.3 Does the definition of research misconduct include 'other practices' that 'seriously deviate' from norms of scientific community? 1=Yes; 2=No
1.4 Does the definition of research misconduct exclude 'honest error and 'differences of opinion'? 1=Yes; 2=No
1.5 To what activity does the policy apply? .00 Unspecified .01 Proposing research .02 Conducting research .03 Reporting research .04 Reviewing research .05 Creative or other scholarly activities (beyond research) .99 Other (Check if present; summarize neatly in this section)