ORI Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research

@inproceedings{Steneck2007ORIIT,
  title={ORI Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research},
  author={Nicholas Steneck},
  year={2007}
}
To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The… 
Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review.
  • Wanda Montalvo, E. Larson
  • Medicine, Psychology
    Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing
  • 2014
TLDR
A systematic review of published research on informed consent and participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement as a guide found participants lacked basic understanding of research elements: randomization, placebo, risks, and therapeutic misconception.
Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report.
TLDR
Panelists recommended nine overarching objectives for RCR instruction that require us to rethink common modes of instruction, and they identified issues and standards that should be covered within controversial areas such as authorship assignment and whistle-blowing.
Effective Strategies for Research Integrity Training—a Meta-analysis
This article reviews educational efforts to promote a responsible conduct of research (RCR) that were reported in scientific publications between 1990 and early 2020. Unlike previous reviews that
Fostering Integrity in Research
TLDR
It is concluded that systematic evaluation of educational programs not only allow for the appraisal of instructional effectiveness but also allows for progressive refinement of educational initiatives.
Fostering Integrity in Research
Of the many interventions that might be used to improve the responsible conduct of research, educational interventions are among the most frequently employed. However, educational interventions come
A Review of the Scientific Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency Studies Conducted by the ABRF Research Groups.
TLDR
This review provides a summary of the contributions of the ABRF Research Groups to promote scientific rigor and reproducibility in Cores from the published literature, ABRF meetings, and ABRF RGs communications.
Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Inventory of Programs and Materials within CTSAs
TLDR
There is no unified approach to RCR training across CTSAs, many programs lack a coherent plan for RCR instruction, and most C TSAs have not developed unique instructional materials tailored to the needs of clinical and translational scientists.
Compliance Disengagement in Research: Development and Validation of a New Measure
TLDR
The HIT-Res questionnaire is an adaptation of the How I Think about Research questionnaire that examines the use of cognitive distortions to justify antisocial behaviors and will enrich the set of assessment tools available to instructors in the responsible conduct of research and to researchers who seek to understand the factors that influence research integrity.
Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The Validity of a New Measure
TLDR
An initial validity study demonstrates the potential usefulness of the Professional Decision-Making in Research as an educational outcome assessment measure and a research instrument for studies on professionalism and integrity in research.
Ethical principles associated with the publication of research in ASHA's scholarly journals: importance and adequacy of coverage.
TLDR
ASHA needs a single, unifying publication policy document, and increased education of all groups in the realm of ethics in the publication process is indicated.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 34 REFERENCES
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
TLDR
Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript’s authors.
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
TLDR
Neither blinding reviewers to the authors and origin of the paper nor requiring them to sign their reports had any effect on rate of detection of errors, and such measures are unlikely to improve the quality of peer review reports.
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review
TLDR
In a study of whether manuscripts are improved by peer review and editing, articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine were improved in 33 of 34 dimensions of reporting quality, but published articles still had room for improvement.
Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.
TLDR
Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.
Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.
TLDR
Positive-outcome bias was evident when studies were submitted for consideration and was amplified in the selection of abstracts for both presentation and publication, neither of which was strongly related to study design or quality.
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
TLDR
Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews, and the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
TLDR
The characteristics of reviewers studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews, and reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.
Scientific misconduct and research integrity for the bench scientist.
  • C. Pascal
  • Education
    Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
  • 2000
TLDR
The principal methods by which ORI exercises its responsibilities in this area are defining what types of behaviors undertaken by research investigators constitute misconduct, overseeing institutional efforts to investigate and report misconduct, and recommending to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) PHS administrative actions when misconduct is identified.
Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
TLDR
Subjective editor ratings of individual reviewers were moderately reliable and correlated with reviewer ability to report manuscript flaws, but these variables were poorly correlated with editors' ratings of review quality or the reviewer's ability to detect flaws in a fictitious manuscript.
Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity.
TLDR
The professional norms of active scientists are compared with those of individuals with institutional responsibility for the conduct of research and Surveyed scientists and institutional representatives had strong and similar norms of professional behavior, but differed in their approaches to an unethical act.
...
...