Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Edwin Were, Jepchirchir Kiplagat, Eunice Kaguiri, Rose Ayikukwei, Violet Naanyu
{"title":"Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.","authors":"Edwin Were,&nbsp;Jepchirchir Kiplagat,&nbsp;Eunice Kaguiri,&nbsp;Rose Ayikukwei,&nbsp;Violet Naanyu","doi":"10.1186/s41073-023-00132-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been documented. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have the capacity to prevent research misconduct? (3) Does your institution have the capacity to manage research misconduct? Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including perceptions on occurrence, prevention detection, investigation, and management of research misconduct. Results are presented with illustrative quotes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students developing thesis reports. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. There were no specific national guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity/efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting, and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of the capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by faculty researchers. We recommend the development of Kenya code of conduct or research integrity guidelines that would cover misconduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10337100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00132-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been documented. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct.

Methods: Interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have the capacity to prevent research misconduct? (3) Does your institution have the capacity to manage research misconduct? Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including perceptions on occurrence, prevention detection, investigation, and management of research misconduct. Results are presented with illustrative quotes.

Results: Respondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students developing thesis reports. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. There were no specific national guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity/efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting, and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of the capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by faculty researchers. We recommend the development of Kenya code of conduct or research integrity guidelines that would cover misconduct.

预防和管理科研不端行为的机构能力:来自肯尼亚科研监管机构的观点。
背景:研究不端行为,即捏造、伪造和抄袭与个人、机构、国家和全球因素有关。研究人员对预防和管理研究不端行为的薄弱或不存在的机构指导方针的认识可能会鼓励这些做法。非洲很少有国家对研究不端行为有明确的指导。在肯尼亚,学术和研究机构预防或管理研究不端行为的能力尚未得到记录。本研究的目的是探讨肯尼亚研究监管机构对研究不端行为的发生和机构预防或管理研究不端行为的能力的看法。方法:对27名研究监管人员(伦理委员会主席和秘书、学术和研究机构的研究主任以及国家监管机构)进行开放式访谈。在其他问题中,参与者被问到:(1)在你看来,科研不端行为有多普遍?(2)贵机构是否有能力防止研究不端行为?(3)贵机构是否有能力管理研究不端行为?他们的回答被录音,转录,并使用NVivo软件编码。演绎编码涵盖了预定义的主题,包括对研究不端行为的发生、预防、检测、调查和管理的看法。结果给出了说明性引用。结果:受访者认为研究不端行为是非常普遍的学生发展论文报告。他们的答复表明,在机构和国家层面没有专门的能力来预防或管理研究不端行为。没有针对研究不端行为的具体国家指导方针。在机构层面,提到的唯一能力/努力是针对减少、发现和管理学生抄袭。没有直接提到管理捏造、伪造或教员研究人员不当行为的能力。我们建议制定肯尼亚行为准则或研究诚信准则,以涵盖不端行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信