See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Ethics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Govert Valkenburg
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-9878
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Research codes of conduct offer guidance to researchers with respect to which values should be realized in research practices, how these values are to be realized, and what the respective responsibilities of the individual and the institution are in this. However, the question how the division between individual and institutional responsibilities is to be made, has hitherto received little attention. Therefore, we conduct an analysis of research codes of conduct, and investigate how responsibilities are positioned as individual or institutional ones and how the boundary between those two is shaped.
Method
We selected 12 codes of conduct that apply to medical research in the Netherlands, and performed a close-reading content analysis of these codes of conduct. We first identify dominant themes, and then investigate how responsibility is attributed to individuals and institutions.
Results
We observe that in many cases, the attribution of the responsibility to either the individual or the institution is not entirely clear and that the notion of culture appears as a residual category for such attributions. This notion of responsible research cultures is deemed important as something that mediates between the individual and institutional level, but at the same time largely lacks substantiation.
Conclusions
While many attributions of individual and institutional responsibility are clear, the exact boundary between individual and institutional responsibility is often problematic. We suggest two possible avenues for improvement in codes of conduct: either clearly attribute responsibilities to individuals or institutions and depend less less on the notion of culture, or make culture a more explicit concern and articulate what it is and how it could be fostered.
Keywords
research integrity, codes of conduct, attribution of responsibility, research culture, institution versus individual
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Ethics.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 25 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 06 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 06 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 30 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 11 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 09 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 08 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 30 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 29 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 29 Sep, 2019
First submitted
On 27 Sep, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Ethics
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Ethics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Govert Valkenburg
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-9878
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Ethics.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 25 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 06 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 06 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 30 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 11 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 09 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 08 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 30 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 29 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 29 Sep, 2019
First submitted
On 27 Sep, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Ethics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Ethics.
Background
Research codes of conduct offer guidance to researchers with respect to which values should be realized in research practices, how these values are to be realized, and what the respective responsibilities of the individual and the institution are in this. However, the question how the division between individual and institutional responsibilities is to be made, has hitherto received little attention. Therefore, we conduct an analysis of research codes of conduct, and investigate how responsibilities are positioned as individual or institutional ones and how the boundary between those two is shaped.
Method
We selected 12 codes of conduct that apply to medical research in the Netherlands, and performed a close-reading content analysis of these codes of conduct. We first identify dominant themes, and then investigate how responsibility is attributed to individuals and institutions.
Results
We observe that in many cases, the attribution of the responsibility to either the individual or the institution is not entirely clear and that the notion of culture appears as a residual category for such attributions. This notion of responsible research cultures is deemed important as something that mediates between the individual and institutional level, but at the same time largely lacks substantiation.
Conclusions
While many attributions of individual and institutional responsibility are clear, the exact boundary between individual and institutional responsibility is often problematic. We suggest two possible avenues for improvement in codes of conduct: either clearly attribute responsibilities to individuals or institutions and depend less less on the notion of culture, or make culture a more explicit concern and articulate what it is and how it could be fostered.
Loading...