National cross-disciplinary research ethics and integrity study
Methodology and results from Estonia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21787477 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kadri Simm (0000-0002-6691-779X, University of Tartu, corresponding author), Mari-Liisa Parder (0000-0002-7612-9797, University of Tartu), Anu Tammeleht (0000-0001-6467-2058, University of Tartu), Kadri Lees (University of Tartu) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 514-538 |
| Publication date | 2024-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-0161 • E-ISSN: 2047-6094 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/17470161241239791 |
| OpenAlex | W4393023091 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 31 |
While empirical studies of research ethics and integrity are increasingly common, few have aimed at national scope, and even fewer at current results from Central and Eastern Europe. This article introduces the results of the first national research integrity survey in Estonia, which included all research-performing organisations in Estonia, was inclusive of all disciplines and all levels of experience. A web-based survey was developed and carried out in Estonia with a call sent to all accredited Estonian research institutions. The results indicate that the vast majority (89%) of respondents consider research ethics and integrity issues important and view falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFPs) as the most severe forms of misconduct. Self-reporting of FFPs is generally comparable to levels published in other studies (6.2%). Gift authorship (41%) and hampering the work of a colleague (32%) were problematic practices most noticed among colleagues. At the same time, two of the noticed questionable research practices (QRPs) – salami-slicing and misuse of research funding – were seen as less severe, hinting at the existence of counter-norms that career advancement rules and structural factors like funding policies may encourage. The availability of research ethics and integrity guidelines was considered good. Ethical aspects of studying potentially stigmatising data in a very small research community are discussed in the article and results are analysed through counter-norms and normative dissonance frames
Cross disciplinary · Data science · Discipline · Engineering ethics · Political science · Research ethics · Research integrity · Social science · Sociology · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Computer Science · Engineering · Ethics in Business and Education
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
Scientists behaving badly
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers
Perceptions of Research Integrity Climate in Hungarian Universities
Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices
Exploring the Gray Area
Normative Dissonance in Science
Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine
Survey on the Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices of Medical Students, PhD Students, and Supervisors at the Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia
Academic and Scientific Authorship Practices
Normal Misbehavior
Research Integrity Attitudes and Behaviors are Difficult to alter
Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists
| Highly cited | No |
|---|