Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other’s findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse. By adopting open science practices, research becomes transparent and accountable. Only then it is possible to verify whether trust in research findings is justified. The magnitude of the issue is substantial with a prevalence of four percent for both fabrication and falsification, and more than 50% for questionable research practices. This implies that researchers regularly engage in behaviors that harm the validity and trustworthiness of their work. What is good for the quality and reliability of research is not always good for a scholarly career. Navigating this dilemma depends on how virtuous the researcher at issue is, but also on the local research climate and the perverse incentives in the way the research system functions. Research institutes, funding agencies and scholarly journals can do a lot to foster research integrity, first and foremost by improving the quality of peer review and reforming researcher assessment

The possibility and desirability of replication in the humanities

In this article, we argue that the debate on the poor reproducibility of scientific research has overlooked an entire field: replication is also possible and desirable in the humanities. So far, the debate on replicability has been carried out primarily in the biomedical, natural and social sciences. It turns out that, for a wide variety of reasons, many of which lead to selective reporting, a large proportion of studies in these fields are not replicable, sometimes as many as 70 percent. In this paper, we leave these fields mostly aside, since they have been extensively addressed in the recent literature, and turn to the humanities. First, we distinguish between replicability and replication. Subsequently, we defend the view that replication is entirely possible in the humanities: it meets all the criteria that have been identified for biomedical, natural and social science research. The uniqueness of many research objects in the humanities does not present an obstacle to this. We also explain why replication is desirable and urgently needed in the humanities. Finally, we give various practical guidelines for how replication in the humanities could be carried out, such as focusing on the replication of cornerstone studies or a random selection of published research in a sub-discipline, and opting, if possible, for a conceptual replication, so that triangulation becomes possible

Are preprints a problem? 5 ways to improve the quality and credibility of preprints

Preprints are research reports have that have not yet been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. They have increased rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, high profile discredited studies have led to concerns that speed has been prioritized over the quality and credibility of evidence. Joeri Tijdink, Mario Malicki, Lex Bouter and Gowri Gopalakrishna argue that all stakeholders of the science system have a responsibility in improving the quality and credibility of pre-prints. They outline 5 steps by which this can be achieved

Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in the Netherlands

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008Objectives: Investments in health research should lead to improvements in health and health care. This is also the remit of the main HTA program in the Netherlands. The aims of this study were to assess whether the results of this program have led to such improvements and to analyze how best to assess the impact from health research.Methods: We assessed the impact of individual HTA projects by adapting the "payback framework" developed in the United Kingdom. We conducted dossier reviews and sent a survey to principal investigators of forty-three projects awarded between 2000 and 2003. We then provided an overview of documented output and outcome that was assessed by ten HTA experts using a scoring method. Finally, we conducted five case studies using information from additional dossier review and semistructured key informant interviews.Results: The findings confirm that the payback framework is a useful approach to assess the impact of HTA projects. We identified over 101 peer reviewed papers, more than twenty-five PhDs, citations of research in guidelines (six projects), and implementation of new treatment strategies (eleven projects). The case studies provided greater depth and understanding about the levels of impact that arise and why and how they have been achieved.Conclusions: It is generally too early to determine whether the HTA program led to actual changes in healthcare policy and practice. However, the results can be used as a baseline measurement for future evaluation and can help funding organizations or HTA agencies consider how to assess impact, possibly routinely. This, in turn, could help inform research strategies and justify expenditure for health research.This research is funded by ZonMw, the Netherlands organization for health research and development (project 945-15-001)