BackgroundInaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.MethodsThese recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The (...) recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.ResultsThe main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct;release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated;take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done;work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years.Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner;have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions;pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication;retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.ConclusionsVarious difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases. (shrink)

CITATION: Horn, L. M. 2015. Promoting responsible research conduct in a developing world academic context. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 6:21-24, doi:10.7196/SAJBL.256.

ABSTRACTThe concept of ‘vulnerability’ is well established within the realm of research ethics and most ethical guidelines include a section on ‘vulnerable populations’. However, the term ‘vulnerability’, used within a human research context, has received a lot of negative publicity recently and has been described as being simultaneously ‘too broad’ and ‘too narrow’.1 The aim of the paper is to explore the concept of research vulnerability by using a detailed case study – that of mineworkers in post‐apartheid South Africa. In (...) particular, the usefulness of Kipnis’s taxonomy of research vulnerability will be examined.2In recent years the volume of clinical research on human subjects in South Africa has increased significantly. The HIV and TB pandemics have contributed to this increase. These epidemics have impacted negatively on the mining industry; and mining companies have become increasingly interested in research initiatives that address these problems. This case study explores the potential research vulnerability of mineworkers in the context of the South African mining industry and examines measures that can reduce this vulnerability. (shrink)

The concept of ‘vulnerability’ is well established within the realm of research ethics and most ethical guidelines include a section on ‘vulnerable populations’. However, the term ‘vulnerability’, used within a human research context, has received a lot of negative publicity recently and has been described as being simultaneously ‘too broad’ and ‘too narrow’.1 The aim of the paper is to explore the concept of research vulnerability by using a detailed case study – that of mineworkers in post‐apartheid South Africa. In (...) particular, the usefulness of Kipnis’s taxonomy of research vulnerability will be examined.2In recent years the volume of clinical research on human subjects in South Africa has increased significantly. The HIV and TB pandemics have contributed to this increase. These epidemics have impacted negatively on the mining industry; and mining companies have become increasingly interested in research initiatives that address these problems. This case study explores the potential research vulnerability of mineworkers in the context of the South African mining industry and examines measures that can reduce this vulnerability. (shrink)

A great deal of effort has gone into developing capacity in the sphere of human research protection programmes in South Africa and Africa over the last decade or more, by several international organisations. However the promotion of the broader agenda of research integrity or ‘RCR’ has lagged behind. From a global perspective South Africa and other African countries are actively involved in research endeavours and collaborations across a very broad spectrum of scientific fields. For this research to fulfil its potential (...) social value it must be reliable and trustworthy and hence it is essential that research institutions and universities take the promotion of research integrity seriously. The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of an institutional office of research integrity within the context of academic research particularly in South Africa but also in Africa. I will reflect on my own experience over a period of five years as a research integrity officer at a South African academic institution to highlight concerns in five domains; the promotion of an ethic of responsibility in opposition to compliance and bureaucracy, collaboration ethics and collegiality especially in the context of North-South collaborations, authorship and publication ethics, the problem of plagiarism and the utility of policy and procedure. I will suggest that the establishment of such an office can be of great value in the promotion of a broad culture of research ethics and responsible research conduct. The possible role and scope of function of an institutional office of research integrity will be briefly outlined. (shrink)

Genomic and biobank research has undergone exponential growth in Africa. Traditionally this resulted in exploitative research practices in the form of so-called ‘parachute research’ with little or no consideration for capacity building. However there has been a recent growth of research and consortia where capacity building and equitable research have been a key objective of the research, and attention is now focused on the governance of this research. The importance of solidarity in genomic biobank research in high income countries is (...) well established and such an ethos reflects the communal based worldviews prevalent in many African communities. However, if the governance of the research is to foster equitable research practices, there must be some reciprocal benefit. This chapter will explore the impact that reciprocity will have on solidarity and how this may manifest in a governance framework in Africa. Particular focus will be given to capacity building and benefit sharing to enable the research to develop for the benefit of the local population, in a manner that promotes trust and fairness. This chapter will conclude with some recommendations on how to ensure reciprocity is enshrined in a governance framework for genomic biobank research in Africa. (shrink)

Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 5, Page 605-607, June 2022.