SPEC Kit 336: Responsible Conduct of Research Training (September 2013)
Page13(13 of 152)
SPEC Kit 336: Responsible Conduct of Research Training · 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Stories of research misconduct in every disci- pline are posted almost daily on websites such as RetractionWatch,1 casting a pall over the academic community. Journal publishers are not only redacting papers for reasons of fraud and misconduct, but some are tracking updates as misbehaviors are uncovered. To help reduce these incidents, federal granting agen- cies are requiring academic institutions to develop some type of formal training to promote ethical and responsible conduct of research (RCR). As universi- ties attempt to identify the training needed to fulfill such requirements, librarians have an opportunity to enhance their roles and maintain their relevance to the university by developing innovative instructional design techniques to enhance both the education and training aspects of RCR issues in the gap areas uncov- ered at each institution. The purpose of this survey was to assess research libraries’ participation in institutional efforts to train faculty, staff, students, and other researchers in the principles of responsible conduct of research and ethical research practices. It includes questions on the institution’s training activities, on training roles currently undertaken by librarians, and on librar- ians’ willingness to expand instruction into the arena of responsible conduct of research. The survey was distributed to the 125 ARL member libraries in May 2013. These results are based on data submitted by 48 university libraries at 47 of the 125 ARL member libraries (38%) by the deadline of June 9, 2013. Granting Agency Impact Federal granting agencies in the United States, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), are required to implement the Federal Research Misconduct Policy,2 which mandates that all participants receive ap- propriate training as defined by the institution. In Canada, the Tri-Council framework3 comprising the three primary granting agencies, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), goes a step further and includes fiscal responsibili- ties as part of the RCR components. To meet these requirements, many universities are developing pro- grams, tutorials, and guides to inform and ensure that their faculty, staff, and students are complying with granting agencies’ requirements for responsible conduct of research. The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program4 is becoming a de facto standard for institutional training in many cases used primarily for the biomedical (treatment of human subjects) component, but also an option for other disci- plines. The US Office of Research Integrity5 maintains links to resources developed by the Office and by uni- versities for RCR training. Complementary to ethics training is the use of case studies in applied ethics education, such as those available from EthicsCore,6 Online Ethics Center,7 and the National Post-Doc Association.8 These policies and resources help define the minimum training requirements, but faculty and students may request additional clarification or assis- tance from their information professionals on campus. Institution-Level Activities All of the survey respondents report that there are institution-wide initiatives to address academic hon- esty or RCR. Activities range from online tutorials to for-credit, face-to-face courses. Most of the institutions