Introduction: Research integrity is considered to be a fundamental aspect of scientific research. When performing scientific research in absence of integrity, the resultant effect will prove to be futile. In order to progress and innovate individually, and as a community, individuals tend to rely strongly on the delicate bond of trust and honesty that exists between them, as members of the greater scientific community (“Research Integrity | WebGURU”, 2018). Karenman (2018), defines research integrity as an active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. Through active adherence Karenman places emphasis on the adoption of integral principles, as opposed to simply acknowledging them as rules set by people of authority. In addition, research integrity requires an overall commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility to the self, ones actions and to a certain extent the practices that characterise responsible research conduct.
These practices include (Karenman, 2018):
- Candor when proposing, performing, and reporting research
- Accuracy and fairness in the representation of contributions to research proposals and reports
- Competence and fairness in peer review
- Team work in scientific interactions, communications and sharing of resources
- Disclosure of conflicts of interest
- Protection of human subjects in the conduct of research
- Humane care of animals in the conduct of research
- Adherence to the mutual responsibilities of mentors and trainees
According to an article by Titus, Wells & Rhoades (2008), misconduct is said to jeopardize the reputation of any institution. The article further reports that the first step to repairing research integrity is taking stock of misconduct’s frequency. Within the article, several investigators have addressed research misconduct instances due to implications, namely: Methodological issues, such as inconsistent definitions of misconduct or not accounting for duplicate reports of the same event. ORI – The Office of Research Integrity (2018) defines research misconduct as any form of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing and/or reviewing research, in addition to reporting research results.
Furthermore, the article recommends six strategies to be adopted in order to champion integrity, namely:
| Adopt zero tolerance | Emphasis is put on creating a zero tolerance culture, whereby all misconduct must be reported, and all allegations are to be thoroughly and fairly investigated. |
| Protect whistleblowers | Careful attention must be paid , specifically to the creation and dissemination of measures to protect whistleblowers, as 43% of the studies participants reported being encouraged by their respective institutions to drop allegations. |
| Clarify how to report | Establish a reporting system that clearly identifies perpetrator, establishes clear policies, procedures and guidelines related to misconduct / responsible conduct. |
| Train the mentors | Mentors specifically need to become more aware of their roles in establishing and maintaining research rules and minimizing opportunities to commit research misconduct. |
| Using alternative mechanisms | Institutions cannot solely rely upon formal complaints of scientific misconduct as the sole source of monitoring the integrity and quality of the research conducted.
– Auditing research records would be one such means. |
| Model ethical behavior | People imitate the behaviour of powerful role models. |
Conclusion
Based on the above article, it can be assumed that one of the most integral components in an institutional culture of research integrity is leadership and commitment to adopting an ethical approach to practice. Recommendations are made directly through encouraging the use of certain strategies. As a physiotherapy student the literature has been quite informative. The student has identified two major influences to an effective and ethical working environment, namely: implementing disciplinary prevention measures through enforcing a fair and honest code of conduct, in addition to providing an effective educational platform for staff to become well informed. Furthermore, facilities should establish misconduct review processes that result in objective decisions, which are not influenced by personal bias and conflicts of interest. When developing a process as such, facilities will be able to identify, analyse and correct certain obstacles, create an accessible environment, implement an intervention for structured feedback, as well as create an increased demand for accountability within an ethical spectrum. Adopting these strategies as an up-and-coming qualified physiotherapist, will be fundamental and set an ethical moral standard within the student for future clinical settings and everyday life.
References
Karenman, S. (2018). Chapter 1 – Research Integrity. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter1/page02.htm
ORI – The Office of Research Integrity. (2018). Definition of Research Misconduct | ORI – The Office of Research Integrity. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
Research Integrity | WebGURU. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-integrity
Titus, S., Wells, J., & Rhoades, L. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453(7198), 980-982. doi: 10.1038/453980a