Promoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236... Show morePromoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and gray literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity. Critical appraisal of evidence was performed for studies describing interventions aimed at research integrity promotion in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of these interventions. The results of this scoping review provide a comprehensive taxonomy of factors with positive or negative impact and their relatedness to individual researchers, research performing and funding organizations, and the system of science. Moreover, the results show that efforts for fostering and promoting research integrity should be implemented at all three levels (researcher, institution, system) simultaneously to deliver greater adherence and implementation of research integrity practices. Although various educational interventions aiming at research integrity promotion exist, we were not able to conclude on the effectiveness of explored interventions due to the methodological quality issues in the studies. Show less
Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the... Show moreVarious stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund. Show less
Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education... Show moreEducation is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should make RI education attractive for all and tailor training to disciplinary-specific contexts. Show less
Kaltenbrunner, W.; Rijcke, S. de; Müller, R.; Burner-Fritsch, I. 2022
Marketization and quantification have become ingrained in academia over the past few decades. The trust in numbers and incentives has led to a proliferation of devices that individualize, induce,... Show moreMarketization and quantification have become ingrained in academia over the past few decades. The trust in numbers and incentives has led to a proliferation of devices that individualize, induce, benchmark, and rank academic performance. As an instantiation of that trend, this article focuses on the establishment and contestation of ‘algorithmic allocation’ at a Dutch university medical centre. Algorithmic allocation is a form of data-driven automated reasoning that enables university administrators to calculate the overall research budget of a department without engaging in a detailed qualitative assessment of the current content and future potential of its research activities. It consists of a range of quantitative performance indicators covering scientific publications, peer recognition, PhD supervision, and grant acquisition. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and document analysis, we contrast the attempt to build a rationale for algorithmic allocation—citing unfair advantage, competitive achievement, incentives, and exchange—with the attempt to challenge that rationale based on existing epistemic differences between departments. From the specifics of the case, we extrapolate to considerations of epistemic and market fairness that might equally be at stake in other attempts to govern the production of scientific knowledge in a quantitative and market-oriented way.Keywords algorithmic allocation; higher education; marketization; performance indicators; quantification; resource allocation Show less
In this article, we study the use of curricula vitae (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of... Show moreIn this article, we study the use of curricula vitae (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of straightforwardly conveyed, objective evidence on which to base comparisons of past achievements and future potentials. We instead conceptualize the evaluation of biographical evidence as a generative interplay between an historically grown, administrative infrastructure (the CV), and a situated evaluative practice in which the representational function of that infrastructure is itself interpreted and established. The use of CVs in peer review can be seen as a doubly comparative practice, where referees compare not only applicants (among each other or to an imagined ideal of excellence), but also their own experience-based understanding of practice and the conceptual assumptions that underpin CV categories. Empirically, we add to existing literature on peer review by drawing attention to self-correcting mechanisms in the reproduction of the scientific workforce. Conceptually, we distinguish three modalities of how the doubly comparative use of CVs can shape the assessment of applicants: calibration, branching out, and repair. The outcome of this reflexive work should not be seen as predetermined by situational pressures. In fact, bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process. Show less
As part of the SOPs4RI project, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to explore all relevantknowledge that may contribute to the aim of the project. This scoping review focuses on the... Show moreAs part of the SOPs4RI project, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to explore all relevantknowledge that may contribute to the aim of the project. This scoping review focuses on the experiences of RPOs and RFOs in the implementation of standard operating procedures (SOPs), guidelines, and codes for the promotion of RI. It provides information about what contributes to the implementation of the RI practices, what the benefits are of these practices, and which factors may incentivise research misconduct. Show less
In this article, we study the practices through which scholars in advanced administrative positionsin Dutch law faculties quantify the publications of their research groups for evaluation purposes... Show moreIn this article, we study the practices through which scholars in advanced administrative positionsin Dutch law faculties quantify the publications of their research groups for evaluation purposes.Our aim is to go beyond studying seemingly one-way effects of evaluation modalities on academicknowledge production and instead look at the ‘micropolitics’ of indicator use, that is, the specificways in which researchers embed indicators in their everyday practices. Metrics of raw publicationoutput provide seemingly clear-cut evidence about academic performance. However, our empiricalmaterial shows that such information can hide strikingly diverse quantification practices. Ratherthan passive reactions to externally-imposed administrative procedures, many of these practicesconstitute proactive attempts of individual researchers to pursue competing normative and epi-stemic agendas. Quantitative indicators to measure publication activity thus do not automaticallyresolve discussions about the nature of academic performance, but relocate them to an administra-tive setting characterized by specific rules of engagement. Show less
Digital humanities is an emerging field whose practitioners apply digital technology to humanistic research problems. Its manifestations are diverse: from the use of online annotation tools in the... Show moreDigital humanities is an emerging field whose practitioners apply digital technology to humanistic research problems. Its manifestations are diverse: from the use of online annotation tools in the collaborative study of empirical sources, the computational analysis of large corpora of textual data, to the use of provocative digital performances for exploring the twists and turns of poststructuralist theory. At the same time, such engagement with novel technologies is often full of tension. In contrast to the single-author, monograph-oriented research that characterizes established forms of scholarship, digital humanities is often practiced in collaborative, interdisciplinary projects that produces digital output rather than traditional publications. The use of digital technology thus creates exciting new possibilities to supplement and extend humanistic knowledge production, but it also entails uncommon requirements regarding the epistemic, social, and material organization of research. Drawing on a combination of ethnographic work and theories from Science & Technology Studies, this thesis investigates the conflicts that arise as scholars try to incorporate digital approaches into their established practices. Its main argument is that lasting innovations in the scholarly work process will only be possible if they are informed by a reflexive sensibility for the history and organizational specificities of the humanities. Show less
Digital humanities scholarship has regularly challenged characteristic organizational features of academic life in the humanities. For example, it is typically practiced in larger collaborative... Show moreDigital humanities scholarship has regularly challenged characteristic organizational features of academic life in the humanities. For example, it is typically practiced in larger collaborative projects that produce output very different from the traditional scholarly monograph. Digital humanists often present their work in strikingly reflexive accounts that are reminiscent of what science and technology studies scholars have called infrastructural inversion, a method that defamiliarizes the socio-material infrastructure of research to expose the inner workings of knowledge production. At first sight, infrastructural inversion might seem to constitute the opposite of the older concept of articulation work, which designates the situated activity of coordinating and managing cooperative work processes. It is more useful, however, to think about infrastructural inversion as a specific form of articulation work. The inversions performed by digital scholars serve to highlight and problematize established ways of streamlining articulation work, for example, through the established model of peer review, or by using conventional forms of scholarly output. In turn, such systematic defamiliarization opens up new and potentially competing ways of imagining the organization of articulation work. Show less
Digital technology can facilitate collaboration and data sharing among humanities scholars, and therefore is sometimes seen as a catalyst for attempts to revise problematic canonical traditions in... Show moreDigital technology can facilitate collaboration and data sharing among humanities scholars, and therefore is sometimes seen as a catalyst for attempts to revise problematic canonical traditions in literary history. In this paper, I interrogate how specific ways of organising scholarly labour make possible certain forms of knowledge, and I study the obstacles scholars face when trying to adapt established organisational models. For this purpose I draw on fieldwork in a large European database project, launched to create empirical knowledge about "forgotten" women writers. Literary studies is characterised by monograph-oriented scholarship, situated in regional disciplinary contexts. The collaborative use of a database, however, requires an integration of individual research practices, and it blurs the division of labour between scholars and information professionals. In the present case, the inertia of established infrastructural arrangements manifested itself as a conflict between what was required to generate the specific type of knowledge the project aimed for, and the need for participants to engage in a more traditional form of knowledge production to advance their individual careers. The tension was better manageable in cases where the project conceded organisational authority to local contexts, an empirical finding with implications for established funding models for collaborative digital scholarship. Show less
