Abstract
This chapter chronicles emerging evidence-based disciplines which can directly support research integrity—translational science, regulatory science, and meta-science. Movement toward precision of scientific standards is uneven, perhaps in part because there has been little accountability and few consequences for poor quality science. There has also been little investment in well-validated measurement instruments and methods for studying research integrity decisions themselves. Research ethics, which preceded the broader notion of research integrity, developed largely without an evidence base, in part because it was broadly assumed that scientific institutions were operating honestly, precluding the need for documenting that they were, indeed, doing so.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aarden, E., Marelli, L., & Blasimme, A. (2021). The translational lag narrative in policy discourse in the United States and the European Union: A comparative study. Humanities & Social Sciences Communication, 8, 107. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-21-00777-y
Anklam, E., Bahl, M., Ball, R., Beger, R. D., Cohen, J., Fitzpatrick, S., Girard, P., Halamoda-Kenzaoui, B., Hinton, D., Hirose, A., Hoeveler, A., Honma, M., Hugas, M., Ishida, S., Kass, G., Kojima, H., Krefting, I., Liachenko, S., Liu, Y., et al. (2022). Emerging technologies and their impact on regulatory science. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 247, 1–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/15353702211052280
Barchi, F., & Little, M. T. (2016). National ethics guidance in sub-Saharan Africa on the collection and use of human biological specimens: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0146-9
Berthelsen, D. B., Woodworth, T. G., Goel, N., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Tugwell, P., Devoe, D., Williamson, P., Terwee, C. B., Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Strand, V., Leong, A. L., Conaghan, P. G., Boers, M., Sjea, B. J., Books, P. M., Simon, L. S., Furst, D. E., Christensen, R., & OMERACT Safety Workng Group. (2021). Harms reported by patients in rheumatology drug trials: A systematic review of randomized trials in the Cochrane library from an OMERACT working group. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 51(3), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.09.023
Boesen, K., Gotzsche, P. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2021). EMA and FDA psychiatric drug trial guidelines: Assessment of guideline development and trial design recommendations. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 30, e35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147
Boutron, I., Crequit, P., Williams, H., Meerpohl, J., Craid, J. C., & Ravaud, P. (2020). Future of evidence ecosystem series: 1. Introduction evidence synthesis ecosystem needs dramatic change. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 123, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.024
Brown, R. C. J., de Barra, M., & Earp, B. D. (2022). Broad medical uncertainty and the ethical obligation for openness. Synthese, 200(2), 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03666-2
Crane, S., & Broome, M. E. (2017). Understanding ethical issues of research participation from the perspective of participating children and adolescents: A systematic review. Worldviews Evidence Based Nursing, 14(3), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12209
Demortain, D. (2017). Expertise, regulatory science and the evaluation of technology and risk: Introduction to the special issue. Minerva, 55, 139–159.
Dendler, L., & Bol, G. (2021). Increasing engagement in regulatory science: Reflections from the field of risk assessment. Science, Technology & Human Values, 46(4), 719–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920944499
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Dolle, L., & Bekaert, S. (2019). High-quality biobanks: Pivotal assets for reproducibility of OMICS-data in biomedical translational research. Proteomics, 19(21–22), e1800485. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201800485
DuBois, J. M., Chibnalt, J. T., & Gibbs, J. (2016). Compliance disengagement in research: Development and validation of a new measure. Science & Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9681-x
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Fanelli, D. (2022). Is science in crisis? In L. J. Jussim, J. A. Krosnick, & T. Stevens Sean (Eds.), eds. Oxford University Press.
Friesen, P., Nadia, A. N. M. Y., & Sheehan, M. (2019). Should the decisions of institutional review boards be consistent? Ethics & Human Research, 41(4), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500022
Ghayas, S., Hassan, Z., Kayan, S., & Biasutti, M. (2022). Construction and validation of the research misconduct scale for social science university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 859466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859466
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2019). Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2
Hardwicke, T. E., & Goodman, S. N. (2020). How often do leading biomedical journals use statistical experts to evaluate statistical methods? The results of a survey. PLoS One, 15(10), e0239598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239598
Haskins, R. (2018). Evidence-based policy: The movement, the goals, the issues, the promise. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 678, 8–37.
Haslam, A., Gil, J., Crain, T., Herrera-Perez, D., Chen, E. Y., Hilal, T., Kim, M. W., & Prasad, V. (2021). The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high impact oncology journals, 2009-2018. BMC Cancer, 21(1), 889. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08632-8
Haven, T. L., de Goede, J. E. E., Tijdink, J. K., & Oort, F. J. (2019a). Personally perceived publication pressure: Revising the publication pressure questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models. Research Integrity & Peer Review, 4, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6
Haven, T. L., Bouter, L. M., Smulders, Y. M., & Tijdink, J. K. (2019b). Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLoS One, 14(6), e02117931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931
Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. M. (2019c). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLoS One, 14(1), e0210599.
Hemming, K., Taljaard, M., McKenzie, J. E., Hopper, R., Copas, A., Thompson, J. A., Dixon-Woods, M., Aldcroft, A., Doussau, A., Grayling, M., Kristunas, C., Goldstein, C. E., Campbell, M. K., Girling, A., Eldridge, S., Campbell, M. J., Lilford, R. J., Weijer, C., Forbes, A. B., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2018). Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 363, k1614. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1614
Herrera-Perez, D., Haslam, A., Crain, T., Gill, J., Livingston, C., Kaestner, V., Hayes, M., Morgan, D., Cifu, A. S., & Prasad, V. (2019). A comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials in three medical journals reveals 396 medical reversals. eLife, 8, e45183. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45183
Jeste, M. (2020). “Conflict of interest” or simply “interest”? Shifting values in translational medicine. In B. Hauray, H. Boullier, & J. M. Gaudilliere (Eds.), Helene, Conflict of interest in medicine. Routledge.
Langfeldt, L., Nedeva, M., Sorlin, S., & Ducan, A. T. (2020). Co-existing notions of research quality: A framework to study context-specific understandings of good research. Minerva, 58, 115–137.
Leichsenring, F., Steinert, C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2019). Toward a paradigm shift in treatment and research of mental disorders. Psychological Medicine, 49(13), 2111–2117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719002265
Liber, A. C. (2022). Using regulatory stances to see all the commercial determinants of health. Milbank Quarterly, 100(3), 918–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12570
Lund, H., Bala, M., Blaine, C., Brunnhuber, K., & Robinson, K. A. (2021). How to improve the study design of clinical trials in internal medicine: Recent advances in the evidence-based methodology. Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, 131(9), 848–853. https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.16076
Lynch, H. F., Abdirisak, M., Bogia, M., & Clapp, J. (2020). Evaluating the quality of research ethics review and oversight: A systematic analysis of quality assessment instruments. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 11(4), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1798563
Mansour, N. N., Balas, E. A., Yang, F. M., & Vernon, M. M. (2020). Prevalence and prevention of reproducibility deficiencies in life sciences research: Large-scale meta-analyses. Medical Science Monitor, 26, e922016. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.922016
Michaels, J. A. (2021). Potential for epistemic injustice in evidence-based healthcare policy and guidance. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47, 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106171
Newman, J. (2017). Deconstructing the debate over evidence-based policy. Critical Policy Studies, 11(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2016.1224724
Paul, K. T., & Haddad, C. (2019). Beyond evidence versus truthiness: Toward a symmetrical approach to knowledge and ignorance in policy studies. Policy Sciences, 52, 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09352-4
Ravaud, P., Crequit, P., Williams, H. C., Meerpohl, J., Craig, J. C., & Boutron, I. (2020). Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 123, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.027
Reisig, M. D., Flippin, M., & Holtfreter, K. (2022). Toward the development of a perceived IRB violation scale. Accountability in Research, 29(5), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1920408
Resnik, D. B. (2021). Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making. Accountability in Research, 28(7), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1855149
Robinson, K. A., Brunnhuber, K., Cilska, D., Juhl, C. B., Christensen, R., Lund, H., & Evidence-Based Research Network. (2020). Evidence-based research series–Paper 1: What evidence-based research is and why is it important? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 129, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.020
Robinson, M. D. (2019a). The market in mind. MIT Press.
Robinson, M. D. (2019b). Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation. Synthese, 196, 4391–4407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1704-0
Rudra, P., & Lenk, C. (2021). Process of risk assessment by research ethics committees: Foundations, shortcomings and open questions. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47, 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105595
Schickore, J., & Hangel, N. (2019). “It might be this, it should be that…” uncertainty and doubt in day-to-day research practice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9, 31.
Sievers, S., Wieschowski, S., & Strech, D. (2021). Investigator brochures for phase I/II trials lack information on the robustness of preclinical safety studies. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 87(7), 2723–2731. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14615
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384
Smaldino, P. E., Turner, M. A., & Kallens, P. A. C. (2019). Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 6(7), 190194. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190194
Smith, E., & Anderson, E. E. (2022). Reimagining IRB review to incorporate a clear and convincing standard of evidence. Accountability in Research, 29(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1880902
Solomon, E. D., English, T., Wroblewski, M., DuBois, J. M., & Antes, A. L. (2022). Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure. Accountability in Research, 29(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1881891
Studies linking diet with health must get a whole lot better. (2022). Nature, 610(7931), 231. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03199-1
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 36, 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2020). Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990-2012) and of latest practices (2017-2018) in high-impact journals. NeuroImage, 221, 117164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117164
Taljaard, M., Hemming, K., Shah, L., Giraudeau, B., Grimshaw, J. M., & Weijer, C. (2017). Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review. Clinical Trials, 14(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774517703057
Tindana, P., Yakubu, A., Staunton, C., Matimba, A., Littler, K., Madden, E., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., & as members of the H3Africa Consortium. (2019). Engaging research ethics committees to develop an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa: The H3Africa model. BMC Medical Ethics, 20, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0398-2
Todt, O., & Lujan, J. L. (2022). Rationality in context: Regulatory science and the best scientific method. Science, Technology & Human Values, 47(5), 1086–1108.
Tugwell, P., Welch, V. A., Karunananthan, S., Maxwell, L. J., Akl, E. A., Avey, M. T., Bhutta, Z. A., Brouwers, M. C., Clark, J. P., Cook, S., Cuervo, L. G., Curran, J., Ghogomu, E. T., Graham, I. G., Grimshaw, J. M., Hutton, B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jordan, Z., Jull, J. E., et al. (2020). When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: Consensus checklist. British Medical Journal, 370, m2864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2864
Venugopal, N., & Saberwal, G. (2021). A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one. PLoS One, 16(5), e0251191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251191
Vergara-Merino, L., Verdejo, C., Franco, J. V. A., Liquitay, C. E., Urrutia, G., Klabunde, R., Perez, P., Sanchez, L., & Madrid, E. (2021). Registered trials address questions already answered with high-certainty evidence: A sample of current redundant research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.024
Vidak, M., Barac, L., Tokalic, R., Bujan, I., & Marusic, A. (2021). Interventions for organizational climate and culture in academia: A sco** review. Science & Engineering Ethics, 27(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00298-6
Vinkers, C. H., Lamberink, H. J., Tijdink, J. K., Heus, P., Bouter, L., Glasziou, P., Moher, D., Damen, J. A., Hooft, L., & Otte, W. M. (2021). The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement. PLoS Biology, 19(4), e3001162. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001162
Wang, M. Q., Fan, A. Y., & Katz, R. V. (2019a). Researcher requests for inappropriate analysis and reporting: A US survey of consulting biostatisticians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(8), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1230
Wang, M. Q., Fan, A. Y., & Katz, R. V. (2019b). Bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting study: Additional findings and concerns. JDR Clinical & Translational Research, 4(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084419837294
Wells, J. A., Thrush, C. R., Martinson, B. C., May, T. A., Stickler, M., Callahan, E. C., & Klomparens, K. L. (2014). Survey of organizational research climates in three research intensive, doctoral granting universities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614552798
Yarborough, M. (2021). Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(8), 562–579. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-106014
Zarin, D. A., Goodman, S. N., & Kimmelman, J. (2019). Harms from uninformative clinical trials. JAMA, 322(9), 813–814. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.9892
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Redman, B. (2023). Evidence-Based Research Integrity Policy. In: Reconstructing Research Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27111-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27111-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27110-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27111-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)