bioRxivScientific Communication & Education
Cooperation And Liaison Between Universities And Editors (CLUE): Recommendations On Best Practice
E. Wager, S. Kleinert, M. Garfinkel, V. Bahr, K. Baždarić, M. Farthing, C. Graf, Z. Hammatt, L. Horn, S. King, D. Parrish, B. Pulverer, P. Taylor, G. van Meer
Abstract
Journals and research institutions have common interests regarding the trustworthiness of research publications but their specific roles and responsibilities differ. These draft recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between journals and institutions about possible and actual problems with reported research. The proposals will be discussed at various meetings including the World Conference on Research Integrity in May 2017. We will also consider comments and suggestions posted on this preprint.\n\nThe main recommendations are that: O_LINational registers of individuals or departments responsible for research integrity at institutions should be created.\nC_LIO_LIInstitutions should develop mechanisms for assessing the validity of research reports that are independent from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct.\nC_LIO_LIEssential research data and peer review records should be retained for at least 10 years.\nC_LIO_LIWhile journals should normally raise concerns with authors in the first instance, they also need criteria to determine when to contact the institution before, or at the same time as, alerting the authors in cases of suspected data fabrication or falsification to prevent the destruction of evidence.\nC_LIO_LIAnonymous or pseudonymous allegations made to journals or institutions should be judged on their merit and not dismissed automatically.\nC_LIO_LIInstitutions should release relevant sections of reports of research trustworthiness or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was the subject of the investigation.\nC_LI
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·bioRxiv·Mar 14, 2019
- A survey on information sources used by academic researchers to evaluate scientific instruments
Carsten Bergenholtz, Samuel C. MacAulay, … Inge Seim·bioRxiv·May 3, 2018
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) -- A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·Research Integrity and Peer ReviewPeer-reviewed·Jan 14, 2021
- Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution
Malcolm Robert Macleod, The NPQIP Collaborative group·bioRxiv·Sep 12, 2017
- Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education
A. R. Artino, E. W. Driessen, L. A. Maggio·bioRxiv·Apr 12, 2018
- Modeling Science Trustworthiness Under Publish Or Perish Pressure
D. R. Grimes, C. T. Bauch, J. P. A. Ioannidis·bioRxiv·May 17, 2017