1 Research Integrity Policies: An Evaluation of Accessibility & Usefulness Rebecca Ann Lind, Ginnifer L. Mastarone, Nathan Earixson, Korin Isotalo Hunt, Jill Caravelli, Sarah E. Millermaier, Brenda Russell 2009 Research Conference on Research Integrity University of Illinois at Chicago

2 Acknowledgment The project described was supported by Grant Number R01NR from the National Institute of Nursing Research and the Office of Research Integrity (Department of Health and Human Services); Lind, PI. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Nursing Research, the National Institutes of Health, or the Office of Research Integrity. No Conflicts of Interest to disclose

3 Topics Intro & Research Questions Method Results Discussion/Q&A

4 Intro & research questions Larry Rhoades (2003): minimal vs. useful Research Questions (1) How accessible are universities’ research integrity policies? (2) How useful are universities’ research integrity policies? Key Resource: CHPS Consulting (2000)

5 Method (1/2) Random Sample: 100 NIH-funded institutions 100 NSF-funded institutions 165 Policies obtained: 84 NIH (11 no policy; 5 unable to determine) 81 NSF (17 no policy; 2 unable to determine)

6 Method (2/2) Content analysis System based on Lind (2005), CHPS (2000) 650 variables, most present/absent 650 variables 21 topic areas; 5 dimensions 93% intercoder reliability Data Analysis Calculation of scores across topic areas Frequency analysis

7 Accessibility from home page Mean: 3.81 SD: 0.94 Level of difficulty Easy (2-3) n=48 Medium (4) n=66 Hard (≥5) n=21 (*30 policies not accessible for coding: not posted, intranet only, links broken, etc.) # Clicks Freq.% *100

8 Usefulness of policies Five main dimensions Setting the Stage Ensuring Fairness Respondent & Complainant Inquiry & Investigation Outcomes

9 1.Setting the stage (M=0.48/ SD=0.17) Definition of RM (0.65/0.20) Definition of RM Reporting of Allegations (0.49/0.19) Pursuing the Allegation (0.32/0.22) Interim Admin. Action (0.65/0.46) Mentoring (0.15/0.27) Time Considerations (0.65/0.30)

10 2. Ensuring fairness (0.53/ 0.24) Maintaining Confidentiality (0.54/0.23) Conflicts of Interest (0.45/0.25) Appropriate Expertise (0.61/0.43)

11 3. Respondent-complainant (0.76/ 0.23) Rights of Respondent (0.89/0.19) Restoration of Respondent’s Reputation (0.58/0.38) Complainant Rights & Protection (0.81/0.25)

12 4. Inquiry & investigation process (0.73/0.16) Appointing the Inq/Inv Committees (0.86/0.20) (0.77/0.27) Conducting the Inq/Inv (0.80/0.20) (0.84/0.21) Inq/Inv Report Content (0.92/0.28) (0.97/0.17)

13 5. Outcomes (0.50/0.22) Decision Makers & Process (0.40/0.31) Sanctions (0.77/0.24) Appeals (0.32/0.38)

14 Policies earning high scores 5 Dimensions: 1. Setting the Stage (high: ≥mean, 0.48) 2. Ensuring Fairness (0.53) 3. Respondent & Complainant (0.76) 4. Inquiry & Investigation (0.73) 5. Outcomes (0.50) # HighFreq.%

15 Discussion: Accessibility Policies fairly accessible 140 posted on Internet (70.0% of total sample; 84.8% of obtained policies) Average of 3-4 clicks from home page Not always easy to find! Unable to obtain 35 policies 28 no policy; 7 unable to determine (17.5% of total sample)

16 Discussion: Usefulness Policy usefulness varies widely Across institutions Across topic areastopic areas Relative strengths: respondent rights, appointing committees, conducting inq/inv, committee reports, complainant rights & protection Relative weaknesses: mentoring, appeals, pursuing allegation, COI

17 Discussion: Future research Continued analysis of this dataset Researchers’ knowledge, understanding, evaluation of RM policies Relationship between policies and researchers’ understanding of RM and processes RM sensitivity (RCR Sensitivity) Relationship between policies and efficacy of RM processes Institutional processes related to adopting/adapting ORI’s sample policy Expanding to other RCR domains

18 For more information

19 Excerpt:Excerpt: RM policy codesheetRM policycodesheet