Abstract

Background: Research fraud is often seen as a rare event, but evidence from self-report surveys indicates that fabrication and falsification of data are common enough to be a problem. This study assessed attitudes to serious research misconduct, contrasting views of self-appointed research "sleuths" and research integrity officers (RIOs).

Methods: Respondents completed a two-round Delphi survey, rating agreement with statements about prevalence, responses to, and consequences of serious research misconduct. In Round 1, there were 95 respondents (37 sleuths, 33 RIOs and 25 other). For Round 2, there were 79 respondents (36 sleuths, 22 RIOs and 21 other).

Results: Respondents agreed on the damaging impact of academic incentive structures on research integrity, and the importance of agencies working together to address serious research misconduct and preserve the academic record. There was polarization of views between sleuths and RIOs on the frequency of serious research misconduct, the adequacy of institutional responses, and the suitability of self-regulation by institutions.

Conclusion: Sleuths and RIOs operate in information silos. They could benefit from working together, but this will only be possible if trust is restored. Given dissatisfaction with institutional self-regulation, drawbacks and benefits of alternative regulatory models need to be evaluated.