Name
Enhancing Effectiveness of Team Science in Cross-National Settings: Research Integrity Responsibilities of Individual Researchers and Professionals in International Research Collaborations
Number
505
Authors

Takehito Kamata, Sophia University

Date
Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Time
3:30 PM - 4:30 PM (EDT)
Presentation Category
Team Science in Academia
Description

Introduction
The objective of this study is to develop a better understanding of the theoretical gaps on research integrity that influence individual researchers and professionals in international research collaborations and explore how to enhance effective of team science at the individual level through research planning and research implementation procedures across academic disciplines and national borders.

National academies and international organizations have discussed the significance of securing research integrity around the world (All European Academies, 2023; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017; OECD, 2022); however, the retraction rate has risen, with over 10,000 papers retracted in 2023 (Van Noorden, 2023). It is necessary to re enchanting global trust among individual researchers and professionals in fostering scientific progress together through collaborative research.

Researchers and policymakers have analyzed research integrity issues like responding to misconduct and promoting integrity through World Conferences on Research Integrity (Steneck et al., 2017). The international research and science policy is complex, reflecting nationality differences and historical evolution, and this complexity could potentially lead to numerous misunderstandings and unforeseen consequences (Potocnik, 2011).

Research Objective/Questions
This study aims to compare the research integrity policies of national/federal funding agencies that serve universities and higher education institutions. I will compare research integrity policies of Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These nations are the members of the Group of Seven (G7), an intergovernmental political and economic forum. Policy makers, scholars, and professionals collaborate to share information and refine research integrity and security policies by establishing the G7 Virtual Academy.

In this study, three research questions are posed: (1) What are commonly defined subjects/concepts in research integrity policies across nations?, (2) What are unique subjects/concepts in each nation’s research integrity policies?, and (3) What are the gaps (Conceptual Research Gap) among the four nations in promoting team science across academic disciplines?

Cross-national differences in research infrastructure, legal structures, regulations, and policy-making processes lead to distinct public policies on a shared global agenda. Policy makers in each nation address research integrity issues based on their national research capacities. Therefore, current research integrity policies cannot be directly applied to develop national-level policies in different nations. A study of cross-national comparisons provides a clearer understanding of policy circumstances from a broader perspective. Conducting a comparative study on sub-national sector comparisons across nations would be beneficial in analyzing contextual differences by reducing the number of differences across national contexts (Marmor, 2017; Radin & Weimer, 2018; Snyder, 2001).

Theoretical and Methodological Approach
A comparative analysis at the national level offers valuable insights into policy lessons learned from various settings and transferable systems, methods, and tools for specific policies across different nations (Guess & Husted, 2017). This study utilizes a qualitative research with the frameworks of research integrity responsibilities (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). I will examine and compare research integrity policies based on the ten frameworks: (a) Research Integrity and Institutional Management, (b) Climate Assessment, (c) Performing Research Misconduct Investigations, (d) RCR Training and Education, (e) Research Integrity, (f) Data Handling, (g) Authorship and Communication, (h) Mentoring and Supervision, (i) Peer Review, and (j) Research Compliance. During data analysis, I apply a framework dimension to each matched description in the research integrity policies. I then prioritize subjects/concepts based on the frequency of different descriptions and themes as a proxy for significance. To support the key findings, the data were collected through published research integrity policies, official documentations, and websites using data triangulation (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).

This study results will assist researchers, professionals, institutional leaders and policymakers to understand various challenges and opportunities in promoting research integrity and learn from their counterparts’ policies to advance team science that fit to their current research support infrastructure and capacities. Understanding various research integrity policies will allow us to examine how their objectives are translated and implemented, analyze how policy makers define and prioritize subjects/concepts, and assess how these policies are prioritized and utilized.

Abstract Keywords
Research Integrity, Responsible Research