14 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
(41, or 85%) offer workshops that cover a wide range of
RCR topics. These typically are open to all interested
attendees, though most university-level activities are
aimed at graduate students and post-docs, or anyone
participating on a grant-funded project, categories
that overlap highly. These workshops tend to be coor-
dinated by campus departments such as the office of
research or the graduate school. The respondents iden-
tified units with names that include buzzwords such
as academic honesty, research integrity, research as-
surance, research ethics, and compliance. Two-thirds
of the responding institutions offer RCR certification.
Medical sciences have a greater emphasis on
RCR training, since they are driven by Institutional
Review Board (IRB) regulations for research on hu-
man subjects and the Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee (IACUC) for treatment of animal sub-
jects. Researchers in these disciplines have had to
develop and enforce training for these programs long
before the recent requirements mandated by other
granting agencies. A search of institutional websites
indicates that twenty-nine of the US (74%) and two of
the Canadian responding institutions (25%) use com-
ponents of the CITI Program, many aimed primarily
at those participating in human subject research. Not
surprisingly, librarians who are hunting for disci-
pline-specific case studies have noted that bioethics
is one of the better-developed discipline specialties
within research ethics.
Respondents were not asked about the availability,
range, or type of college- or department-specific ac-
tivities. The survey authors assumed those activities
are too numerous and too localized to be counted
successfully. Many respondents offered comments
similar to, “Individual programs vary by school and
department,” illustrating a library awareness of such
activities and their diversity.
Library-Level Activities
Librarians are finding a niche in promoting the re-
sponsible conduct of research through a variety of
supplemental guides and training, such as offering
traditional face-to-face workshops for students, part-
nering with faculty to design plagiarism-proof as-
signments, developing seminars and symposia, and
creating online guides.
Twenty-five respondents (53%) include information
about RCR on the library website. Their comments
imply that much of this information is limited to the
traditional areas of library involvement: plagiarism,
citation, and bibliography management software.
Most respondents (36, or 77%) offer training sessions
on some aspect of RCR. Course-based instruction ses-
sions and face-to-face workshops are the most com-
mon training method (89% and 83% respectively),
followed by online guides (78%). Half of the libraries
offer online tutorials. The majority of respondents
have been providing this training for more than three
years.
As with website information, the most frequently
covered topics in library sessions include citing and
citation management software, and avoiding plagia-
rism. Ethics, data management, and responsible au-
thorship comprise the second tier of topics covered.
Other topics mentioned include intellectual property,
specifically patents and copyright. Data management
sessions are being held at some libraries, and are ex-
pected to increase as grant agency requirements are
codified. These sessions will be opportunities to in-
clude the “why” and “responsible” aspects as well as
“how to” manage and share data.
Most sessions are initiated by course instruc-
tors, or are general sessions devised by librarians.
Librarians are collaborating most frequently with
specific departments or colleges, the graduate school,
undergraduate centers, and centers for research. The
largest group of initiators of these sessions is instruc-
tors requesting course-specific training, followed by
librarians, labs, and administration. Comments reveal
that many sessions are requested during orientations,
and one library reports that, “We are frequently con-
tacted by graduate students because they are not re-
ceiving sufficient support ...on how to teach academic
integrity, detect cheating and plagiarism, and docu-
ment such breaches.…” Two-thirds of the respondents
prefer to tailor RCR training sessions to audience or
discipline type one-third find general-audience ses-
sions adequate.
Comments in response to several questions include
“it depends” and demonstrate flexibility through a
typical assortment of offerings, such as orientation
for one group, seminars for another, course-based
(41, or 85%) offer workshops that cover a wide range of
RCR topics. These typically are open to all interested
attendees, though most university-level activities are
aimed at graduate students and post-docs, or anyone
participating on a grant-funded project, categories
that overlap highly. These workshops tend to be coor-
dinated by campus departments such as the office of
research or the graduate school. The respondents iden-
tified units with names that include buzzwords such
as academic honesty, research integrity, research as-
surance, research ethics, and compliance. Two-thirds
of the responding institutions offer RCR certification.
Medical sciences have a greater emphasis on
RCR training, since they are driven by Institutional
Review Board (IRB) regulations for research on hu-
man subjects and the Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee (IACUC) for treatment of animal sub-
jects. Researchers in these disciplines have had to
develop and enforce training for these programs long
before the recent requirements mandated by other
granting agencies. A search of institutional websites
indicates that twenty-nine of the US (74%) and two of
the Canadian responding institutions (25%) use com-
ponents of the CITI Program, many aimed primarily
at those participating in human subject research. Not
surprisingly, librarians who are hunting for disci-
pline-specific case studies have noted that bioethics
is one of the better-developed discipline specialties
within research ethics.
Respondents were not asked about the availability,
range, or type of college- or department-specific ac-
tivities. The survey authors assumed those activities
are too numerous and too localized to be counted
successfully. Many respondents offered comments
similar to, “Individual programs vary by school and
department,” illustrating a library awareness of such
activities and their diversity.
Library-Level Activities
Librarians are finding a niche in promoting the re-
sponsible conduct of research through a variety of
supplemental guides and training, such as offering
traditional face-to-face workshops for students, part-
nering with faculty to design plagiarism-proof as-
signments, developing seminars and symposia, and
creating online guides.
Twenty-five respondents (53%) include information
about RCR on the library website. Their comments
imply that much of this information is limited to the
traditional areas of library involvement: plagiarism,
citation, and bibliography management software.
Most respondents (36, or 77%) offer training sessions
on some aspect of RCR. Course-based instruction ses-
sions and face-to-face workshops are the most com-
mon training method (89% and 83% respectively),
followed by online guides (78%). Half of the libraries
offer online tutorials. The majority of respondents
have been providing this training for more than three
years.
As with website information, the most frequently
covered topics in library sessions include citing and
citation management software, and avoiding plagia-
rism. Ethics, data management, and responsible au-
thorship comprise the second tier of topics covered.
Other topics mentioned include intellectual property,
specifically patents and copyright. Data management
sessions are being held at some libraries, and are ex-
pected to increase as grant agency requirements are
codified. These sessions will be opportunities to in-
clude the “why” and “responsible” aspects as well as
“how to” manage and share data.
Most sessions are initiated by course instruc-
tors, or are general sessions devised by librarians.
Librarians are collaborating most frequently with
specific departments or colleges, the graduate school,
undergraduate centers, and centers for research. The
largest group of initiators of these sessions is instruc-
tors requesting course-specific training, followed by
librarians, labs, and administration. Comments reveal
that many sessions are requested during orientations,
and one library reports that, “We are frequently con-
tacted by graduate students because they are not re-
ceiving sufficient support ...on how to teach academic
integrity, detect cheating and plagiarism, and docu-
ment such breaches.…” Two-thirds of the respondents
prefer to tailor RCR training sessions to audience or
discipline type one-third find general-audience ses-
sions adequate.
Comments in response to several questions include
“it depends” and demonstrate flexibility through a
typical assortment of offerings, such as orientation
for one group, seminars for another, course-based
