National Cross-Disciplinary Research Ethics and Integrity Study: Methodology and Results from Estonia

Autor/inn/en	Kadri Simm; Mari-Liisa Parder; Anu Tammeleht; Kadri Lees
Titel	National Cross-Disciplinary Research Ethics and Integrity Study: Methodology and Results from Estonia
Quelle	In: Research Ethics, 20 (2024) 3, S. 514-538Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Kadri Simm) ORCID (Mari-Liisa Parder)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1747-0161
DOI	10.1177/17470161241239791
Schlagwörter	Forschungsbericht; Ethics; Integrity; Interdisciplinary Approach; Research Universities; Research Methodology; Financial Support; Authors; Peer Relationship; Researchers; Plagiarism; Deception; Misinformation; College Faculty; School Surveys; Career Development; Guidelines; Work Environment; Foreign Countries; Estonia + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ethik; Integrität; Fächerübergreifender Unterricht; Fächerverbindender Unterricht; Interdisziplinarität; Forschungseinrichtung; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Finanzielle Förderung; Author; Autor; Autorin; Peer-Beziehungen; Researcher; Forscher; Plagiat; Täuschung; Fakultät; Berufsentwicklung; Richtlinien; Arbeitsmilieu; Ausland; Estland
Abstract	While empirical studies of research ethics and integrity are increasingly common, few have aimed at national scope, and even fewer at current results from Central and Eastern Europe. This article introduces the results of the first national research integrity survey in Estonia, which included all research-performing organisations in Estonia, was inclusive of all disciplines and all levels of experience. A web-based survey was developed and carried out in Estonia with a call sent to all accredited Estonian research institutions. The results indicate that the vast majority (89%) of respondents consider research ethics and integrity issues important and view falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFPs) as the most severe forms of misconduct. Self-reporting of FFPs is generally comparable to levels published in other studies (6.2%). Gift authorship (41%) and hampering the work of a colleague (32%) were problematic practices most noticed among colleagues. At the same time, two of the noticed questionable research practices (QRPs) - salami-slicing and misuse of research funding -- were seen as less severe, hinting at the existence of counter-norms that career advancement rules and structural factors like funding policies may encourage. The availability of research ethics and integrity guidelines was considered good. Ethical aspects of studying potentially stigmatising data in a very small research community are discussed in the article and results are analysed through counter-norms andc normative dissonance frames. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Begutachtung	Peer reviewed
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2025/2/06