Awareness of Publication Guidelines and the Responsible Conduct of Research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32’s.     

Ethics Instruction Increases Graduate Students' Responsible Conduct of Research Knowledge but not Moral Reasoning

The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term effectiveness of ethics courses in enhancing responsible conduct of research (RCR) knowledge and moral judgment among graduate students in health-related disciplines. Forty-eight graduate students completed a questionnaire about research experience, knowledge and judgments about appropriate research practices, and a standardized test of moral judgment at the beginning and end of a semester-long ethics course. Knowledge about RCR but not moral judgment increased significantly in some areas. The results are discussed in terms of implications for RCR instruction and of future research designed to improve RCR instruction.     

Expanding the Scope of Responsible Conduct of Research Instruction

We argue that responsible conduct research (RCR) instruction should be extended beyond students and trainees funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF) to include all students, trainees, faculty, and research staff involved in research. Extending the scope of RCR instruction can help institutions develop and maintain an environment that promotes ethical research conduct. Universities and scientific organizations have objected to expanding the scope of RCR instruction on the grounds that it would be a major undertaking that would require the expenditure of additional institutional resources. We argue, however, that expanding the scope of RCR instruction can be done efficiently without placing undue burdens on institutions.     

Teaching and Learning Responsible Research Conduct: Influences of Prior Experiences on Acceptance of New Ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

Awareness of publication guidelines and the responsible conduct of research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32's.     

Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research in Psychology: Methods and Scope

In this mixed-method study of education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) in psychology, phase one survey respondents (n?=?141) reported that faculty and students were familiar with RCR standards and procedures to educate them were believed to be adequate. However, educational methods varied widely. In phase two, seven survey respondents completed in-depth interviews assessing RCR training and education and research review procedures. Educational methods through which RCR content was presented included the following ones: traditional (lectures), technical (web-based), and experiential (internships), but RCR was often minimally considered in the formal curriculum. Our results suggest that psychology training programs might benefit from more formal consideration of RCR education and training in the curriculum.     

Emphasizing the experiences of researchers after RCR instructions: Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Malaysia

The purpose of this study is to highlight the experiences of individuals who participate in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training program held at various universities in Malaysia. In response to a mailing request sent to 40 individuals who had undertaken a RCR training program, 15 participants agreed to be interviewed. The results of the study showed that the three main reasons for participating in the training were as follows: anticipation for knowledge gained; personal experience with research misconduct; and establishing a new network of researchers. In terms of the positive effects gained from undertaking the training, the participants highlighted an increased awareness of the issues and problems related to research misconduct; the need to promote integrity in research conduct; a change in the way they conduct their research; and a change in the way they confront and address misconduct. The findings of this study should be valuable for policy makers and those involved in the management of research programs and ethics, as it demonstrated the importance of RCR training in equipping researchers with the necessary knowledge to conduct research responsibly, and to avoid research misconduct.     

Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

The professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one’s nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.     

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.     

A theoretical basis for accepting undergraduate academic record as a predictor of success in a research career. Implications for the validity of peer review

We have studied postdoctoral trainees funded by NIH F32 fellowship awards in order to test the effectiveness of responsible conduct of research (RCR) education in the areas of authorship and publication practices. We used a 3-wave telephone and on-line survey design, conducted over a period of two years, in order to test for individual change before and after completing RCR education. Overall the responses of the subjects suggested a clear awareness of standards and practices in publication. However, our results failed to suggest that RCR education in this group significantly increased the level of ethically appropriate behavioral responses measured in the study. Similarly we saw no significant effect on increasing awareness of or attention to ethical guidelines about authorship and publication practices. Our interpretation of these null findings was influenced by the significant publication experience of our cohort of subjects. We forward possible explanations for these null findings in this context. Most importantly, we do not suggest that our results argue against continued instruction in RCR education. Instead, we believe our data reinforce the importance of careful articulation of course goals and objectives with attention to the background and experience of the student audience when developing RCR curricula.     

Authorship and publication practices: evaluation of the effect of responsible conduct of research instruction to postdoctoral trainees

We have studied postdoctoral trainees funded by NIH F32 fellowship awards in order to test the effectiveness of responsible conduct of research (RCR) education in the areas of authorship and publication practices. We used a 3-wave telephone and on-line survey design, conducted over a period of two years, in order to test for individual change before and after completing RCR education. Overall the responses of the subjects suggested a clear awareness of standards and practices in publication. However, our results failed to suggest that RCR education in this group significantly increased the level of ethically appropriate behavioral responses measured in the study. Similarly we saw no significant effect on increasing awareness of or attention to ethical guidelines about authorship and publication practices. Our interpretation of these null findings was influenced by the significant publication experience of our cohort of subjects. We forward possible explanations for these null findings in this context. Most importantly, we do not suggest that our results argue against continued instruction in RCR education. Instead, we believe our data reinforce the importance of careful articulation of course goals and objectives with attention to the background and experience of the student audience when developing RCR curricula.     

Outcomes Assessment of Role-Play Scenarios for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research

We describe the summative assessment of role-play scenarios that we previously developed to teach central topics in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. Interviews with role-play participants, with participants in a case discussion training session, and with untrained students suggested that role-playing might promote a deeper appreciation of RCR by shifting the focus away from wanting to simply “know the rules.” We also present the results of a think-aloud case analysis study and describe the development of a behaviorally-anchored rating scale (BARS) to assess participants' case analysis performance.     

The Emergence of the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in PHS Policy and Practice

The Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is now an established academic field taught at virtually every major American research university and generates a growing volume of research and pedagogical literature. Paradoxically, it is a field without a consensually agreed upon definition, goals, foundational theories, research agenda, and pedagogical methodology. It has been suggested that RCR as currently being taught is ineffective in preventing misconduct and improving the quality of research. The following short history of RCR, focused mainly on Federal policy and practice, explains how this curious state of affairs developed and persists and concludes with some suggestions for the future of RCR instruction.     

Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review

This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature? To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.     

Articulating a Role for Program Evaluation in Responsible Conduct of Research Programs

Since Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct was released in 2001, there has been increased interest in evaluating programs designed to foster the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The field of program evaluation is designed to determine the worth or value of programs and can serve as a resource for institutions interested in evaluating their RCR programs. This article provides a very brief overview of program evaluation, demonstrates how it can be applied to RCR, and provides key reference information. Evaluating RCR programs can promote institutional accountability for the resources that are used in supporting those programs.     

Research as Profession and Practice: Frameworks for Guiding the Responsible Conduct of Research

Programs in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) vary between institutions, demonstrated by disparate structures and goals. These variations may be attributed to the absence of grounding frameworks within which to examine research and RCR education programs. This article examines research as a practice and a profession, using these frames to draw out defining features of research and the moral obligations entailed. Situating research within virtue ethics can clarify how researchers might cultivate the virtues necessary for meeting its obligations and aims. By elucidating these features, these perspectives can serve to guide the development of RCR education programs.     

Outcomes assessment of role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research

We describe the summative assessment of role-play scenarios that we previously developed to teach central topics in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. Interviews with role-play participants, with participants in a case discussion training session, and with untrained students suggested that role-playing might promote a deeper appreciation of RCR by shifting the focus away from wanting to simply "know the rules." We also present the results of a think-aloud case analysis study and describe the development of a behaviorally-anchored rating scale (BARS) to assess participants' case analysis performance.     

Guiding the Next Generation of NIH Investigators in Responsible Conduct of Research: The Role of the Mentor

National Institutes of Health (NIH) K award recipients and their mentors were surveyed to investigate the role of the mentor. We found that a majority of mentors provided guidance in responsible research conduct (RCR), and that most of these relationships were deemed helpful. Mentors also responded that they played a greater importance in RCR training of their mentees than the mentees reported. Our results suggest both mentors and mentees report that mentors ideally should play a more important role in RCR training than was actually the case. For conflicting interests, subjects' protection, and misconduct, approximately 50% of K recipients found the mentor to be not at all important or only somewhat important for these areas of RCR training. We conclude the mentor's role is important but not optimal based on the results of our study cohort.     

Rescuing Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) education requirements, resources, and research have proliferated over the past twenty years, but evidence and experience highlight shortcomings in many domains: goals, audience, content, teaching tools, use of the Internet for instruction, instructors, allocation of responsibility for education, education requirements, and sources of funding. Revised approaches and suggested roles and responsibilities are proposed to meet these challenges. The unifying theme for these recommendations is to shift the focus from RCR education to RCR culture building.