Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-zzcdp Total loading time: 0.872 Render date: 2021-12-05T04:52:08.166Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

3 - Keeping Science Healthy: Research Integrity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2019

Joanna M. Setchell
Affiliation:
Durham University
Get access

Summary

Research integrity means conducting science in such a way that others can be confident in the methods we used and trust the findings we report. In addition to our responsibility to understand and comply with the ethical and legal obligations associated with our research, research integrity involves scrupulous honesty and the highest standards of rigour. However, a combination of our own biases, distorted career incentives, poor understanding of study design, and misuse of statistical analysis lead to practices that damage science (questionable research practices). Such practices undermine the validity of studies and increase the chance of erroneous results, leading to a literature based on false positive conclusions and studies that can’t be replicated. The inability to replicate the findings of published studies has been popularised as the replication crisis, particularly in medicine and psychology. In this chapter, I first define research misconduct and its consequences. I then review responsible practices and how to avoid questionable research practices. We’ll revisit these issues throughout the book.

Type
Chapter
Information
Studying Primates
How to Design, Conduct and Report Primatological Research
, pp. 31 - 44
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Polka, J, Kiley, R, Konforti, B, Sterna, B, Vale, RD. 2018. Publish peer reviews. Nature 560: 545547. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w. A call for open review of manuscripts, with a useful history of peer review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setchell, JM. 2015. Double-blind peer review and the advantages of sharing data. International Journal of Primatology 36: 891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9860-2. Editorial announcing that the International Journal of Primatology has implemented double-blind peer review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, T. 2003. How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. The COPE Report. https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2019].
Brand, A, Allen, L, Altman, M, Hlava, M, Scott, J. 2015. Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing 28: 151155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211. Describes a contributor role taxonomy identifying specific contributions to published research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clymo, RS. 2014. Reporting Research: A Biologist’s Guide to Articles, Talks, and Posters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4 covers authorship.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Science Editors. Authorship and Authorship Responsibilities. www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/ [Accessed 9 January 2019]. Principles to guide authorship-related decisions, policies, practices, and responsibilities.
Gaffey, A. 2015. Determining and negotiating authorship. Psychological Science Agenda. www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/06/determining-authorship.aspx [Accessed 9 January 2019]. Includes examples of authorship contracts.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html [Accessed 9 January 2019]. Defines criteria for authorship.
McNutt, MK, Bradford, M, Drazen, JM, Hanson, B, Howard, B, Jamieson, KH, Kiermer, V, Marcus, E, Pope, BK, Schekman, R, Swaminathan, S, Stang, PJ, Verma, IM. 2018. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 201715374. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115. Proposes standards for authorship, describes the responsibilities of corresponding authors and recommends use of ORCID identifiers for authors.CrossRef
All European Academies. 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Revised Edition. Berlin, Germany: ALLEA – All European Academies. www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017-1.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2019]. Defines the principles of research integrity, describes good research practices, and outlines violations of research integrity.
Borries, C, Sandel, AA, Koenig, A, Fernandez-Duque, E, Kamilar, JM, Amoroso, CR, Barton, RA, Bray, J, Di Fiore, A, Gilby, IC, Gordon, AD, Mundry, R, Port, M, Powell, LE, Pusey, AE, Spriggs, A, Nunn, CL. 2016. Transparency, usability, and reproducibility: Guiding principles for improving comparative databases using primates as examples. Evolutionary Anthropology 25: 232238. Highlights the need to improve the transparency of comparative data and proposes guidelines for doing so.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Center for Open Science: https://cos.io/ [Accessed 3 January 2019]. The Center for Open Science aims to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Includes guidelines for transparency and openness in research.
Forstmeier, W, Wagenmakers, EJ, Parker, TH. 2017. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings: a practical guide. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 92: 19411968. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12315. Reviews problematic practices in science and highlights strategies to promote better science, including preregistration, blind data collection and analysis, and comprehensive reporting of results.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, H, Parker, T, Nakagawa, S, Barnett, A, Fidler, F. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLOS ONE 13: e0200303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200303. Results of a survey showing that questionable research practices are common in ecology and evolution.CrossRef
Harris, R. 2017. Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions. New York: Basic Books. Describes the ‘reproducibility crisis’ in biomedical research; relevant to all science.Google Scholar
Holman, L, Head, ML, Lanfear, R, Jennions, MD. 2015. Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: Why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biology 13: e1002190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190. Reviews how researchers’ expectations influence study outcomes and the need for blind protocols.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ihle, M, Winney, IS, Krysalli, A, Croucher, M. 2017. Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology 28: 348354. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx003. Outlines the challenges facing science and provides guidelines and tutorials on open practices for behavioural ecologists.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2: e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Examines biases that affect research outcomes and how we can address them.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, NL. 1998. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2: 196217. Defines HARKing, presents data suggesting that it is common and explains why this is a problem.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, BA, Ebersole, CR, DeHaven, AC, Mellor, DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 26002606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114. Distinguishes between postdiction and prediction, and explains why they are often confused. Highlights the benefits of preregistration and addresses some of the practical difficulties involved in implementing preregistration.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, TH, Bowman, SD, Nakagawa, S, Gurevitch, J, Mellor, DT, Rosenblatt, RP, DeHaven, AC. 2018. Tools for Transparency in Ecology and Evolution (TTEE). http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/G65CB. A checklist of questions to help authors comply with transparency and openness promotion guidelines and to help reviewers and editors assess that compliance.
Simmons, JP, Nelson, LD, Simonsohn, U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22: 13591366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632. Shows that flexibility in data collection, analysis and reporting dramatically increases false-positive rates and proposes requirements for authors and guidelines for reviewers to resolve this problem.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. http://wcrif.org/statement [Accessed 3 January 2019]. An international effort to create a global guide to responsible research conduct.
Smaldino, PE, McElreath, R. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3: 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384. Reviews the incentives that favour poor scientific practice and shows that selection for high output leads to poor science.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Universities UK. Concordat to Support Research Integrity. www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2012/the-concordat-to-support-research-integrity.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2019]. The UK national framework for good research conduct and its governance.
US Office of Research Integrity: https://ori.hhs.gov [Accessed 3 January 2019]. Useful resources on responsible research conduct and research integrity.
Wicherts, JM. 2017. The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them). Animals 7: 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120090. A review of problems in science, possible explanations for them, and how to deal with them.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum Young Scientists. Code of Ethics for Researchers. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. http://wef.ch/coe [Accessed 3 January 2019]. Seven principles of being an ethical scientist, by an international group of scientists.

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×