IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity

Author

Listed:
  • David Moher
  • Lex Bouter
  • Sabine Kleinert
  • Paul Glasziou
  • Mai Har Sham
  • Virginia Barbour
  • Anne-Marie Coriat
  • Nicole Foeger
  • Ulrich Dirnagl

Abstract

For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. This Essay presents the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs), developed as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity, with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement by ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behavior that leads to trustworthy research.

Suggested Citation

  • David Moher & Lex Bouter & Sabine Kleinert & Paul Glasziou & Mai Har Sham & Virginia Barbour & Anne-Marie Coriat & Nicole Foeger & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000737
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    3. Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez & Daniel J. Lindegger & Ala Taji Heravi & Thomas Stojanov & Martin Sykora & Suzanne Elayan & Stephen J. Mooney & John A. Naslund & Marta Fadda & Oliver Gruebner, 2023. "Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten, 2021. "Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Gowri Gopalakrishna & Gerben ter Riet & Gerko Vink & Ineke Stoop & Jelte M Wicherts & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Gadd, Elizabeth, 2021. "Mis-measuring our universities: how global university rankings don't add up," SocArXiv gxbn5, Center for Open Science.
    7. Yuki Yamada, 2021. "How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, January.
    8. Mads P. Sørensen & Tine Ravn & Ana Marušić & Andrea Reyes Elizondo & Panagiotis Kavouras & Joeri K. Tijdink & Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen, 2021. "Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Becker, Albrecht & Lukka, Kari, 2023. "Instrumentalism and the publish-or-perish regime," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Shinichi Nakagawa & Edward R. Ivimey-Cook & Matthew J. Grainger & Rose E. O’Dea & Samantha Burke & Szymon M. Drobniak & Elliot Gould & Erin L. Macartney & April Robin Martinig & Kyle Morrison & Matthi, 2023. "Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-5, December.
    11. Chin, Jason & Zeiler, Kathryn, 2021. "Replicability in Empirical Legal Research," LawArXiv 2b5k4, Center for Open Science.
    12. Isidore Komla Zotoo & Guifeng Liu & Zhangping Lu & Frank Kofi Essien & Wencheng Su, 2023. "The Impact of Key Stakeholders and the Computer Skills of Librarians on Research Data Management Support Services (Id so-21-1893.r2)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    13. Rosie Hastings & Krishma Labib & Iris Lechner & Lex Bouter & Guy Widdershoven & Natalie Evans, 2023. "Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 318-335.
    14. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    15. Adam J Kucharski & Sebastian Funk & Rosalind M Eggo, 2020. "The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-3, October.
    16. Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000737. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.