Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care

Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse. Both in terms of diagnostics and in terms of therapy, the tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on strategies of individualisation (detecting and pu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Life sciences, society and policy Vol. 15; no. 1; p. 5
Main Authors: Zwart, Hub, ter Meulen, Ruud
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 10-06-2019
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse. Both in terms of diagnostics and in terms of therapy, the tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on strategies of individualisation (detecting and punishing individual deviance). Other contributions to the integrity debate, however, focus more explicitly on environmental factors, e.g. on the quality and resilience of research ecosystems, on institutional rather than individual responsibilities, and on the quality of the research culture. One example of this is the Bonn PRINTEGER Statement . This editorial to the LSSP thematic series (article collection) entitled Addressing integrity challenges in research: the institutional dimension invites authors to contribute to the research integrity debate. Notably, we are interested in submissions addressing issues such as institutional responsibilities, changes in the research climate, duties of research managers and research performing or research funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) as well as new approaches to integrity education.
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
content type line 63
ObjectType-Editorial-2
ObjectType-Commentary-1
ISSN:2195-7819
2195-7819
DOI:10.1186/s40504-019-0093-6