Abstract
Background: In recent years attention for research integrity increased substantially, underlined by
revised codes of conduct, research projects and initiatives to foster research integrity. The INSPIRE
project (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research integrity to
set an Example)* aims to collect, classify and share 'best practices', with the purpose of inspiring and
activating stakeholders to contribute to a responsible and reliable research climate.
Methods: To conduct the inventory, we utilized four approaches. First we send out a call among our
extensive network of colleagues working in the field of research integrity, and requested to share
interesting and unknown initiatives. Second we send personal invitations to submit initiatives that we
heard of. Third we examined existing inventories. Fourth we are working with a webcrawler with a view
to add to our manual search.
Results: We have found a diversity of initiatives, ranging from research integrity in education,
changing research culture, raising awareness to codes of conduct, and clarification of procedures and
policies. For example Delft University of Technology designed a roadmap that clarifies the courses of
action in case of a dilemma concerning a perceived suspect of wrongdoing or conflicts of interest.**
This map foresees in clear guidance for a wide public, is relatively low cost, easy to disseminate, and
originally designed. Another example is the use of so called data stewards: staff that supports
researchers with any requests related to data management and sharing. Both Delft University and het
Princes Maxima Centre in Utrecht use variations of this concept. A third example are the Research
Culture Awards at the University of Glasgow which celebrate activities promoting a positive research
culture. A forth example are sessions at the Alzeheimer Centre in the Netherlands, were researchers
of all levels expose oneself by sharing the dilemma's they confronted or mistakes they made in their
work.
Conclusions: Our inventory led to an inspiring and useful collection that will be made freely available
in an online toolbox in The Embassy of Good Science (https://www.embassy.science/). The most
sailliant items in the toolbox will be presented.
Literature references: * Netherlands Research Integrity Network. Inventory in the Netherlands of
Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research integrity to set an Example (INSPIRE project)
https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/
**https://d1rkab7tlqy5f1.cloudfront.net/TUDelft/Over_TU_Delft/Strategie/Integriteitsbeleid/TUDEthischeDilemmas-ENv10-V4.pdf
revised codes of conduct, research projects and initiatives to foster research integrity. The INSPIRE
project (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research integrity to
set an Example)* aims to collect, classify and share 'best practices', with the purpose of inspiring and
activating stakeholders to contribute to a responsible and reliable research climate.
Methods: To conduct the inventory, we utilized four approaches. First we send out a call among our
extensive network of colleagues working in the field of research integrity, and requested to share
interesting and unknown initiatives. Second we send personal invitations to submit initiatives that we
heard of. Third we examined existing inventories. Fourth we are working with a webcrawler with a view
to add to our manual search.
Results: We have found a diversity of initiatives, ranging from research integrity in education,
changing research culture, raising awareness to codes of conduct, and clarification of procedures and
policies. For example Delft University of Technology designed a roadmap that clarifies the courses of
action in case of a dilemma concerning a perceived suspect of wrongdoing or conflicts of interest.**
This map foresees in clear guidance for a wide public, is relatively low cost, easy to disseminate, and
originally designed. Another example is the use of so called data stewards: staff that supports
researchers with any requests related to data management and sharing. Both Delft University and het
Princes Maxima Centre in Utrecht use variations of this concept. A third example are the Research
Culture Awards at the University of Glasgow which celebrate activities promoting a positive research
culture. A forth example are sessions at the Alzeheimer Centre in the Netherlands, were researchers
of all levels expose oneself by sharing the dilemma's they confronted or mistakes they made in their
work.
Conclusions: Our inventory led to an inspiring and useful collection that will be made freely available
in an online toolbox in The Embassy of Good Science (https://www.embassy.science/). The most
sailliant items in the toolbox will be presented.
Literature references: * Netherlands Research Integrity Network. Inventory in the Netherlands of
Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research integrity to set an Example (INSPIRE project)
https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/
**https://d1rkab7tlqy5f1.cloudfront.net/TUDelft/Over_TU_Delft/Strategie/Integriteitsbeleid/TUDEthischeDilemmas-ENv10-V4.pdf
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 2020 |
| Event | REWARD | EQUATOR Conference 2020: Sharing Strategies for Research Improvement - Berlin, Germany Duration: 20 Feb 2020 → 22 Feb 2020 |
Conference
| Conference | REWARD | EQUATOR Conference 2020 |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | Germany |
| City | Berlin |
| Period | 20/02/2020 → 22/02/2020 |