A Delphi survey on attitudes to serious research misconduct: Exploring convergence vs. polarization of views of research "sleuths" and research integrity experts.

IF 4.4 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-24 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2026.2632079

Dorothy V M Bishop

{"title":"A Delphi survey on attitudes to serious research misconduct: Exploring convergence vs. polarization of views of research \"sleuths\" and research integrity experts.","authors":"Dorothy V M Bishop","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Research fraud is often seen as a rare event, but evidence from self-report surveys indicates that fabrication and falsification of data are common enough to be a problem. This study assessed attitudes to serious research misconduct, contrasting views of self-appointed research \"sleuths\" and research integrity (RI) experts.Methods: Respondents completed a two-round Delphi survey, rating agreement with statements about prevalence, responses to, and consequences of serious research misconduct. In Round 1, there were 95 respondents (37 sleuths, 33 RI experts and 25 other). For Round 2, there were 79 respondents (36 sleuths, 22 RI experts and 21 other).Results: Respondents agreed on the damaging impact of academic incentive structures on research integrity, and the importance of agencies working together to address serious research misconduct and preserve the academic record. There was polarization of views between sleuths and RI experts on the frequency of serious research misconduct, the adequacy of institutional responses, and the suitability of self-regulation by institutions.Conclusion: Sleuths and RI experts operate in information silos. They could benefit from working together, but this will only be possible if trust is restored. Institutional self-regulation has drawbacks. Strengths and weaknesses of alternative regulatory models need to be evaluated.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2632079"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2632079","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research fraud is often seen as a rare event, but evidence from self-report surveys indicates that fabrication and falsification of data are common enough to be a problem. This study assessed attitudes to serious research misconduct, contrasting views of self-appointed research "sleuths" and research integrity (RI) experts.

Methods: Respondents completed a two-round Delphi survey, rating agreement with statements about prevalence, responses to, and consequences of serious research misconduct. In Round 1, there were 95 respondents (37 sleuths, 33 RI experts and 25 other). For Round 2, there were 79 respondents (36 sleuths, 22 RI experts and 21 other).

Results: Respondents agreed on the damaging impact of academic incentive structures on research integrity, and the importance of agencies working together to address serious research misconduct and preserve the academic record. There was polarization of views between sleuths and RI experts on the frequency of serious research misconduct, the adequacy of institutional responses, and the suitability of self-regulation by institutions.

Conclusion: Sleuths and RI experts operate in information silos. They could benefit from working together, but this will only be possible if trust is restored. Institutional self-regulation has drawbacks. Strengths and weaknesses of alternative regulatory models need to be evaluated.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对严重科研不端行为态度的德尔菲调查：探索科研“侦探”和科研诚信专家观点的趋同与两极分化。

背景：研究欺诈通常被视为罕见事件，但来自自我报告调查的证据表明，伪造和伪造数据很常见，足以成为一个问题。这项研究评估了对严重科研不端行为的态度，对比了自封的科研“侦探”和科研诚信（RI）专家的观点。方法：受访者完成两轮德尔菲调查，对严重研究不端行为的患病率、反应和后果的陈述进行评级。在第一轮中，有95名受访者（37名侦探，33名国际扶轮专家和25名其他人士）。对于第二轮，有79名受访者（36名侦探，22名国际扶轮专家和21名其他人士）。结果：受访者同意学术激励结构对研究诚信的破坏性影响，以及机构合作解决严重的研究不端行为和保存学术记录的重要性。在严重研究不端行为的频率、机构反应的充分性以及机构自我监管的适宜性等问题上，侦探和国际研究所专家之间的观点出现了两极分化。结论：侦探和国际扶轮专家在信息孤岛中运作。他们可以从合作中受益，但这只有在恢复信任的情况下才有可能。机构自律也有缺点。需要评估替代监管模式的优缺点。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.