A survey reveals a disagreement between scientific sleuths and integrity officers on handling research misconduct. Sleuths anonymously report integrity breaches, while officers investigate them. The survey, which involved 79 participants, unearthed strong consensus that the pressure to publish fosters misconduct. However, only 6% of sleuths found reporting channels effective, against 77% of officers. Dorothy Bishop emphasized the chaotic handling of misconduct cases. She aims to stimulate dialogue between the two groups to create better systems for addressing research fraud.
The survey shows a significant divide between scientific sleuths, who report breaches of research integrity, and integrity officers, who investigate allegations at institutions.
Dorothy Bishop states, 'We lack a system for dealing with reports of individuals or groups who have committed research misconduct, which is really badly handled at the moment.'
Most participants agreed that the pressure to publish encourages dubious practices, and institutions must take action when serious misconduct is found.
Only a little less than 6% of sleuths agreed that current reporting channels for misconduct are effective, compared to 77% of research-integrity officers.
Collection
[
|
...
]