Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines

<div><p>Professional codes of ethics are social contracts among members of a professional group, which aim to instigate, encourage and nurture ethical behaviour and prevent professional misconduct, including research and publication. Despite the existence of codes of ethics, research misconduct remains a serious problem. A survey of codes of ethics from 795 professional organizations from the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Codes of Ethics Collection showed that 182 of them (23%) used research integrity and research ethics terminology in their codes, with differences across disciplines: while the terminology was common in professional organizations in social sciences (82%), mental health (71%), sciences (61%), other organizations had no statements (construction trades, fraternal social organizations, real estate) or a few of them (management, media, engineering). A subsample of 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terminology than the whole sample: an average of 10.4% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 research integrity/ethics terms compared to 3.3% (95% CI = 2.1–4.6%), respectively (P<0.001). Overall, 62% of all statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. Professional organizations should define research integrity and research ethics issues in their ethics codes and collaborate within and across disciplines to adequately address responsible conduct of research and meet contemporary needs of their communities.</p></div

Average values (95% confidence intervals) of DIT-2 scores^* for 3 cohorts of 2^nd year medical students.

<p>*Possible score range 0–100.</p><p>†One-way ANCOVA.</p

DIT-2 scores (mean±95% CI) in repeated measurements on 2 cohorts of medical students first tested on their 2^nd study year and then on 4^th year (Cohort I) or 3rd year (Cohort II).

<p>Triangles – Postconventional developmental profile, squares – Maintaining Norms developmental profile, and circles – Personal Interest developmental profile at the first measurement point.</p

Study design.

<p>Study design.</p

Associations between authors' ratings of contribution categories and number of authors on manuscript.

<p>Associations between authors' ratings of contribution categories and number of authors on manuscript.</p

DIT-2 scores (mean±95% confidence interval, CI) of medical students from all six study years.

<p>* – p<0.001 vs all other study years; † – p<0.001 vs 1^st, 2^nd and 6^th study year.</p

Research integrity (RI) statements in ethics codes for research-related professional organizations in 27 categories of the Codes of Ethics Collection.^*

<p>*Organizations involved in performing or regulating research were identified as those having the term ‘research’ or ‘science’ in their name or the following terms: ‘academy’, ‘alliance’, ‘association’, ‘board’, ‘center/centre’, ‘chamber’, ‘committee’, ‘congress’, ‘council’, ‘federation’, ‘institute’, ‘journal’, ‘society’, or ‘university’.</p><p>†An organization may be included in more than one professional category in the Collection (795 unique organizations; total of 982 organizations in 28 categories).</p><p>‡Percentages were not calculated for groups with n<20.</p><p>Research integrity (RI) statements in ethics codes for research-related professional organizations in 27 categories of the Codes of Ethics Collection.^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662#t004fn001" target="_blank">*</a>}</p

Average values (95% confidence intervals) of DIT-2 scores^* in repeated measurements on 2 cohorts of medical students^†.

<p>*Possible score range 0–100.</p><p>†The results of mixed within-between subjects ANCOVA are presented in the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017406#s3" target="_blank">Results</a> section.</p

Perceived importance of contribution categories (mean ± standard deviation of the score on the scale from 0 to 4) of authors who were or were not identified as qualifying according to ICMJE criteria^*.

<p>*Numbers in parenthesis are numbers of authors who did or did not participated in given contribution.</p>†<p>Mann-Whitney test.</p>‡<p>Significantly lower (<i>P</i><0.05) than of those qualifying for authorship and contributed this category.</p>§<p>Significantly lower (<i>P</i><0.05) than of those qualifying for authorship and did not contribute to this category.</p>∥<p>Significantly lower (<i>P</i><0.05) than of those who did not qualify for authorship and did not contribute to this category.</p>¶<p>Final approval of the article is criterion which person has to fulfill to be identified as a qualifying authorship.</p

Research integrity (RI) statements in ethics codes of research-related professional organizations (n = 158) in the Codes of Ethics Collection, ranked by the number of organizations with a statement addressing the term.^*

<p>*Percentages were not calculated for groups with n<20.</p><p>†Organizations involved in performing or regulating research were identified as those having the term ‘research’ or ‘science’ in their name or the following terms: ‘academy’, ‘alliance’, ‘association’, ‘board’, ‘center/centre’, ‘chamber’, ‘committee’, ‘congress’, ‘council’, ‘federation’, ‘institute’, ‘journal’, ‘society’, or ‘university’.</p><p>‡These statements included bias due to the conflict of interest.</p><p>Research integrity (RI) statements in ethics codes of research-related professional organizations (n = 158) in the Codes of Ethics Collection, ranked by the number of organizations with a statement addressing the term.^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662#t002fn001" target="_blank">*</a>}</p