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

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Kadri Simm (ORCID Kadri Simm (ORCID 0000-0002-6691-779X); Mari-Liisa Parder (ORCID Mari-Liisa Parder (ORCID 0000-0002-7612-9797); Anu Tammeleht; Kadri Lees
  • Language:
    English
  • Source:
    Research Ethics. 2024 20(3):514-538.
  • Publication Date:
    2024
  • Document Type:
    Journal Articles
    Reports - Research
  • Additional Information
    • Availability:
      SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: https://sagepub.com
    • Peer Reviewed:
      Y
    • Source:
      25
    • Education Level:
      Higher Education
      Postsecondary Education
    • Subject Terms:
      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
    • Subject Terms:
      Estonia
    • Accession Number:
      10.1177/17470161241239791
    • ISSN:
      1747-0161
      2047-6094
    • 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.
    • Abstract:
      As Provided
    • Publication Date:
      2024
    • Accession Number:
      EJ1432525