As the national network on research integrity in The Netherlands, NRIN organizes mutiple symposiums and a diversity of open meetings. Here you can find a collection of these video recordings, accecible for everyone interested.
How to foster responsible research practices (2022)
On September 23, 2022 the Netherlands Research Integrity Network organized a symposium focussing on how different stakeholders, such as institutes, funders and journals, can foster responsible research practices. The symposium was completely recorded and the separate clips and slides of each presentation are available below.
Research Performing Organisations have different objectives, but most have a stated ambition to foster responsible research practices. However, this is often perceived – not least by researchers – to be in conflict with some of their other objectives, such as publication in journals of high impact, or placement in University league tables. How might improving responsible research practice be given due weight in RPO management decision making?
Institutional research integrity: a case study from the Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity In this talk, Gowri Gopalakrishna will use the key results from the Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity as a case study to illustrate ways in which academic institutions can foster research integrity. It will touch on the explanatory factors we found most important in the survey results. She will also share practical implementable actions that were discussed in the last year of the project as ways institutions and their related stakeholders in the academic research landscape can help foster research integrity at the micro, meso and macro levels.
In her talk, dr. Tamarinde Haven will focus on the role of the research climate in fostering research integrity. One key finding from her investigation among academic researchers in Amsterdam, was the role of responsible supervision. Tamarinde will share how she used the results of her PhD project to develop a training for PhD supervisors and close with some findings of a pilot study she’s currently conducting into responsible role modelling for research integrity in biomedicine.
There has been a rapid rise in collaborations in science, technology, and innovation across institutions, disciplines, sectors and borders. Such collaboration can deliver outcomes that expand the boundaries of human knowledge and have the potential to deliver real benefits for today’s rapidly developing society. However, disputes can and do frequently arise in collaborations and misconduct can occur. This Framework provides guidance for researchers on how to reinforce a culture of responsible conduct of research (research integrity) in their collaborations so they can, as far as possible, avoid incidences of research misconduct and unacceptable research practices occurring during the collaborative work.
Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are in pole position to incentivize responsible research practices; researchers are dependent on funding and will follow the requirements funders make. However, this is not common practice yet. In this talk, Joeri Tijdink highlights that funders can develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan, emphasize what core topics can be addressed by funders to foster RI and zoom in on what other measures funders can implement to guide funders towards strengthening RI-policy in their own organizations.
The way in which researchers are assessed and rewarded plays a crucial role on practices and behaviours. Not only are assessments central to the high-pressure, high-competition culture of research, but they also shape how we perceive research success. In this presentation, Noémie will first look at perspectives of research success and will explain that current research assessments are constraining success to a narrow set of metrics and detaching it from quality and integrity. Following, she will then show how the scientific community is responding to this problem by showcasing important initiatives that have moved the research assessment debate to action.
As the guardians of the scientific record, editors have a clear responsibility for the validity of the content they publish. When unreliable data or errors are discovered in a published article, editors need to retract or correct the paper to maintain the accuracy of the scientific literature. Sabine Kleinert will give examples how this has changed over the recent years. But there is much more journals can do to strengthen research integrity by addressing the more common issue of questionable research. The Open Access era, while a laudable goal, can have unforeseen detrimental effects on research integrity that need to be addressed by the publishing community.
Calls have been made to showcase changes that occurred to each study due to peer review. Until those calls are met, it is our aim to identify and synthesize findings of all studies that analysed differences between preprints or submitted manuscript versions and peer-reviewed publications. This living systematic review is ongoing, but data of 21 studies published till end of 2020 indicate very high similarity between version-pairs, with largest changes occurring in introduction or discussion sections of papers. If studies findings rarely change, journal publication and peer review may not be the best approach for science dissemination.
Academic journals play a central role in the dissemination of research findings. Consequently, many expect journals to take an important role in contributing to and asserting the appropriateness of the published record. Some even expect the academic literature to only contain ‘verified facts’.. But how realistic is this expectation, and what consequences does it have? What tools and processes do journals have at their disposal to ascertain the validity of their articles? And what is the influence of novel publishing (e.g. preprint servers) and review (e.g. post-publication peer review) practices? In this talk Serge Horbach discusses and and unpacks journals’ commitment to scientific integrity and validity.