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
Previous Page Next Page