Hooper et al.

Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2

[Link]
Research Integrity and
Peer Review

COMMENTARY Open Access

Designing integrated research integrity

training: authorship, publication, and peer
review
Mark Hooper* , Virginia Barbour, Anne Walsh, Stephanie Bradbury and Jane Jacobs

Abstract
This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT),
developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review.
The importance of providing research integrity training in these areas is now widely accepted; however, it remains
an open question how best to conduct this training. For this reason, it is vital for institutions, journals, and peak
bodies to share learnings.
We describe how we have collaborated across our institution to develop training that supports QUT’s principles
and which is in line with insights from contemporary research on best practices in learning design, universal
design, and faculty involvement. We also discuss how we have refined these courses iteratively over time, and
consider potential mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of the courses more formally.

Background and allows institutions and researchers to demonstrate

The idea that institutions ought to provide researchers their commitment to comprehensive research integrity
with formal training in research integrity is now gener- training and to satisfy the requirements of certain fund-
ally accepted. How best to conduct research integrity ing bodies.
training, however, is a contested issue [1–5]. However, it is not clear that the “standalone” training
One option is to provide research integrity training by method is sufficient to teach research integrity effectively
way of “standalone” courses or units, covering a broad or to promote an institutional culture that truly values
range of responsible research practices. The United the responsible conduct of research. Research integrity
States Office of Research Integrity (ORI) recommends training is not a “vaccine” to be administered just once
that training should encompass nine core instructional [7]. A single training experience is insufficient to instil
areas: (1) research misconduct, (2) protection of human ethics training in a lasting way [1] and “outsourcing”
subjects, (3) welfare of laboratory animals, (4) conflicts ethics training to a single course risks sending a negative
of interest, (5) data management practices, (6) responsi- message that “education is developed… with an eye to
bilities of mentors and trainees, (7) collaborative re- expedience rather than excellence” and is therefore not
search, (8) Authorship and Publication, and (9) peer valued by the institution [8].
review [6]. One option is to train all of these together in This paper describes the first 2 years of our institu-
a single standalone course. Our institution has a com- tion’s experience attempting to move beyond the single
prehensive online course that does just that, and there standalone training method to an “integrated training
are some advantages to this approach. It ensures that all method” wherein various topics in research integrity are
researchers who have undertaken the course are familiar addressed separately, framed in the context of re-
with their responsibilities across all of the core areas. searchers’ goals and QUT’s goals to promote responsible
Moreover, training in this way mirrors the structure of research practices, and integrated with other forms of
national codes governing responsible research practices research training. To date, we have developed two such
courses. In the first, we have integrated content about a
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] researcher’s responsibilities with respect to Authorship
Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Brisbane, Australia

© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License ([Link] which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
([Link] applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 2 of 12

and Publication into a more general course about pub- global outlook, and a strong research focus. QUT also
lishing academic papers. In the second, we have inte- places a high value on promoting a culture of research in-
grated content about research integrity into a course tegrity and offers a range of complementary training in this
about how to conduct and respond to peer review. We area, including an online research integrity course, and
use these integrated courses to complement, rather than workshops in human and animal ethics. Research integrity
to replace, our standalone online research integrity train- also features in other courses, notably Advanced Informa-
ing. This hybrid approach is in line with findings from a tion Research Skills, which is mandatory for higher degree
2017 meta-analysis that concluded that hybrid courses research students ([Link]
are the most effective method of training [2]. In 2016–2017, we launched the two new research in-
The idea of adopting an integrated approach to re- tegrity training courses described in this paper: Author-
search integrity training is not new. For one thing, inte- ship and Publication and Journal Peer Review. The
grating research integrity training with other forms of former was launched in April 2016 and has since been
research training is something that good research super- attended by 607 participants; the latter was launched in
visors have always done and should continue to do. As May 2017 and has been attended by 116 participants.
Faden et al. put it, “No type of research ethics training Crucial to the development of our training has been
will be more effective, ultimately, than mentoring… the collaboration across our institution. It is a joint ini-
watching senior faculty grapple with a question of re- tiative between the Office of Research Ethics and Integ-
search ethics, as it emerges, in real time, in the lab, the rity and the QUT Library Research Support Team. This
field, or the clinic” [9, 10]. We agree. Indeed, we have a is a diverse core team encompassing expertise in schol-
network of Research Integrity Advisors in each faculty arly communication, data management, research ethics,
whose role includes promoting research integrity, and journal editing, law, learning design, and philosophy. We
our institution’s Research Students Centre offers a train- have also sought the input and participation of senior re-
ing course called Effective Supervisory Practices that searchers across all faculties of our institution.
promotes good mentorship among faculty who supervise
graduate students. But not all mentors or supervisors
are equal in this respect, and at any rate, the supervisory Authorship and Publication
mentorship model may be insufficient, by itself, for the Authorship and Publication is a two-and-a-half-hour
complexities of the contemporary postgraduate research face-to-face course that aims to provide higher degree
environment wherein “postgraduate research is no lon- research students and early career researchers with a
ger viewed according to narrow conceptions of supervi- conceptual map of the world of academic publication. It
sion, but as the whole environment and culture in which covers a variety of interrelated topics in a series of
HDR research is undertaken” [11]. For institutions, like lightning talks and multimedia and aims to equip re-
ours, that want to ensure all researchers have access to searchers with tools, resources, and information to help
quality research integrity training, a broader coordinated them achieve one of their goals: publishing research.
approach is necessary to complement the day-to-day in- We aim to weave a researcher’s primary ethical respon-
teractions between supervisors and their trainees. sibilities in terms of Authorship and Publication into the
In developing our training approach, we have drawn context of achieving this goal. For example, the course
on the work of others. We have attempted to design our considers how to determine authorship, how to ensure
training in line with contemporary literature on best originality and avoid plagiarism, how to declare conflicts
practices in learning design, universal design, and faculty of interest, and how to manage ongoing responsibilities
involvement, as we will describe in this paper. We know for published works. These topics are interspersed with
that other institutions—locally and globally—are also other practical research skills: choosing the right journal,
working to develop effective research integrity training, managing data, academic writing tips, registering and
and believe it is important to share methods and maintaining an ORCID iD ([Link] and writing
learnings. a cover letter to the editor. Some of the topics have an
intersection between integrity training and other forms of
Our context research training. For example, the section about choosing
Our office—the Office of Research Ethics and Integri- the right journal involves understanding open access and
ty—was established in 2014 and provides education, open data, and these latter topics are simultaneously
guidance, support, and advice about research ethics and practical issues involving consideration of funding and
integrity within the Queensland University of Technol- visibility and ethical issues about transparency and repro-
ogy (QUT). QUT is a major Australian university in ducibility. QUT is a strong supporter of open access
Brisbane, Queensland. QUT positions itself as a “univer- ([Link] being the
sity for the real world” with some 50,000 students, a first university in the world to adopt an institution-wide
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 3 of 12

open-access policy, and it is something that we promote understanding of the whole publication process—to
in our courses. understand how all the complex parts fit together—and
The structure of Authorship and Publication follows a to discover resources and tools such that they can pur-
subway diagram [12] that was carefully designed to tie all sue individual topics further according to their various
of the individual topics together into a coherent narrative needs or interests. By providing course materials imme-
(Fig. 1). The session begins in the top left corner of the diately after the sessions, we encourage the audience to
map, and the agenda follows a path towards publication, follow the presentations, rather than scramble to take
crossing various lines, summarising each step of the contemporaneous notes. This is an appropriate training
process. The map is crucial to the training because its method for our participants who, as academic re-
structure gives participants a conceptual framework to searchers, are quite capable of self-directed learning, and
understand how all the pieces fit together and to think of of grasping complex topics quickly, but are often un-
their own current circumstances within the bigger picture. aware of all the tools, resources, and support services
The topics are delivered using a variety of different that are available to help them. In terms of research in-
methods. Some topics are covered by lightning talks of tegrity, we aim to frame all of the topics covered in the
3–5 min; others are covered by animated videos; others context of good and responsible practices and a number
are covered by short interview clips of senior academics of the modules reinforce each other. In this way, we
expressing their views and demonstrating different dis- strive to make a norm of good Authorship and Publica-
ciplinary perspectives. We make the multimedia content tion practices within our institution. For example, in dis-
available to participants immediately following the ses- cussing research data management, we discuss how it
sions, and some course videos are openly available to enables reproducibility and data sharing. Similarly, in
anyone under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 Licence discussing cover letters, we explain competing interests,
[13, 14]. The agenda for our most recent session (Oct how declaring one’s interests promotes transparency,
2017) is provided in Table 1. and so on. These are the normative dimensions of publi-
All of these topics are covered within two-and-a-half cation, presented in the context of practical tools and
hours, and so the course is fast paced. Indeed, it is too skills. By blending these, our training aims to promote
fast paced for participants to retain all the information an institutional research culture in which Authorship
about every topic. But within the context of our training and Publication are always understood through the lens
goals, this is not a critical issue. The goal of these train- of research integrity. This is important, since as Langlais
ing sessions is for participants to gain a broad and Bent note, “Research… suggests that graduate

Fig. 1 Handout (A3) provided to participants of Authorship and Publication

Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 4 of 12

Table 1 Authorship and Publication agenda All participants are provided with links to more in-
# Item Method of delivery formation and opportunities to learn further—by
1 Welcome, overview, etc. Narrator introduction watching additional videos available on the course
2 Develop a data management plan Lightning talk
website, by joining one of the university’s academic
writing circles, or by connecting with their Faculty-
3 Get an ORCID iD Lightning talk
based Research Integrity Advisor or Liaison Librarian.
4 Agree authorship Lightning talk We set up information tables outside the seminar
5 Academics discussing authorship Video room where participants can explore these options,
(short interview clips)
take home some promotional materials, and chat
6 Shortlisting journals Lightning talk about any of the topics covered.
7 Open access 101 Lightning talk
8 Writing tips Video
(short interview clips) Journal Peer Review
9 Originality and plagiarism Lightning talk Journal Peer Review is our second course in this series. It
10 Report COIs and acknowledge grants Video (animated) is a two-and-a-half-hour face-to-face course and aims to
provide early career researchers with a broad understand-
11 Do you still need a cover letter? Lightning talk
ing of the Journal Peer Review system and introductory
12 Respond to peer review Video (animated)
training in conducting and responding to peer review.
13 Review the publishing agreement Lightning talk Just as Authorship and Publication was structured
14 Deposit manuscript at QUT ePrints Lightning talk around a subway diagram, our Journal Peer Review
15 What happens after publication? Lightning talk course is structured around a diagram that draws the in-
16 Promote your work Lightning talk dividual topics together into a coherent conceptual
framework. In this case, the diagram depicts a great in-
17 Questions Open discussion
dustrial machine, composed of many parts that have
been added or changed over time [16] (Fig. 2). We will
discuss this machine further below. The reverse side of
students have very little awareness of the normative the handout contains a variety of “quick tips”, sourced
bases of research” [15]. Moreover, our goal is in line with from academics, about conducting and responding to
what Antes et al. describe as “the implicit aim of ethics peer review (Fig. 3).
instruction – to foster a community of social responsi- As with the previous course, we intertwine the princi-
bility” [4]. We think of our integrated approach as some- ples of research integrity throughout the training, in-
thing like “research integrity training by stealth”, and we cluding fairness, competence, transparency, and
use this method to complement the more explicit re- confidentiality.
search integrity training that researchers at our institu- Specific research integrity issues also arise in understand-
tion undertake as part of a standalone online course. ing different forms of peer review. For example, the course
We have refined the courses over time in response content includes encountering and responding to signed
to participants’ feedback. Originally, we offered and anonymous/unsigned models of post-publication peer
Authorship and Publication over two sessions—“Fun- review. In another section of the course, participants are
damentals” and “Strategies”—the second of which was asked to consider and discuss three case studies involving
a slower-paced panel discussion that explored specific peer review from the Committee on Publication Ethics
topics in greater detail. We discontinued the slower- (COPE) ([Link]
paced Strategies session as feedback suggested that The agenda for our most recent Journal Peer Review
participants preferred the faster-paced Fundamentals session (Oct 2017) is provided in Table 2.
version. We preserved some discipline-specific ele- The topics are covered using a combination of live
ments of the Strategies session in the form of videos talks and multimedia. Participants are encouraged to
that have been included in the faster-paced course discuss their own views, and all participants are con-
and are available on the course website. These are nected with tools, resources, and links to more
discussed further below. information.
Throughout the training, we give participants many
opportunities to ask questions and express their own
views. Following each agenda item, we allow a partici- Design of the courses
pant to ask the presenter “one burning question”. We Learning design can significantly impact learning out-
also have an extended question and discussion time at comes, and we have aimed to design our courses in view
the end of the session. of contemporary research in this area.
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 5 of 12

Fig. 2 Handout (A3) provided to participants of Journal Peer Review (front)

Images For example, when discussing different types of peer re-

One basic principle of learning design is that images are view, we use the graphic shown in Fig. 4 to explain
often more successful than blocks of text [17]. “People “Double Blind”, “Single Blind”, and “Open” peer review.
can learn more deeply from words and pictures than In all cases, we have tried to use imagery to reinforce,
from words alone [18].” To that end, we attempted to and not to distract from, the spoken words. This com-
reinforce all major concepts with suitable imagery. Most plementary method, according to Mayer’s cognitive the-
concepts were illustrated using minimalistic graphics. ory of multimedia, enhances learning in terms of

Fig. 3 Handout (A3) provided to participants of Journal Peer Review (back)

Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 6 of 12

Table 2 Journal Peer Review agenda

# Item Method of delivery
1 Welcome, overview, etc. Narrator introduction
2 Introduction to peer review Lightning talk
3 History of Journal Peer Review Video (animated)
4 Peer review as quality control Presentation
5 Informal and formal Presentation
6 Being an editor Presentation (guest speaker)
7 Conducting peer review Presentation (guest speaker)
8 Responding to peer review Video (short interview clips)
9 Pitfalls in peer review Presentation (case studies)
10 Emerging trends in peer review Presentation (including an activity)
11 Questions Open discussion

attention and memory and reduces extraneous cognitive

processing [18].

Animation
The effectiveness of animation in training is still open to
debate. There is an argument to be made that animated
resources have the potential to both attract participants
(through humor, novelty, etc.) and enable more effective
learning, especially in the case of dynamic concepts that
are not easily conveyed by a static image. However, em-
pirical research has so far failed to provide convincing
evidence for the superiority of animation over other
teaching methods in terms of memory retention [19].
Nonetheless, with the jury still out, we decided to pro- Fig. 4 Minimalistic representation of kinds of peer review in terms
duce short animated videos [20, 21] for a number of rea- of anonymity
sons. First, short animations are undoubtedly attractive
to higher degree students and early career researchers,
our target audiences. Animations provoke interest, and history begins by presenting a simple model of editorial
can be used as online advertising materials to promote review adopted by Philosophical Transactions in 1665
the courses, as we have done with some success. Second, (Fig. 5); it goes on to explain various innovations and
animated clips can easily be shared online after the ses- additions one by one (e.g., preprints, post-publication
sions or on social media. In this way, the courses can be- peer review, and mechanisms for getting credit for peer
come blended learning experiences, transcending the review (Fig. 6)); and the animation ultimately concludes
face-to-face time in the workshops themselves, and pro- by zooming-out to reveal the vast complex system of
voking ongoing discussion. Third, animations have a peer-review we have today—a large, ever-changing
higher capital cost but a lower operating cost than other machine in perpetual motion, comprised of both old
forms of presentation. In practice, a senior professor can parts and new (Fig. 7).
write and record an expert voice-over, which is then set This animated information is then reinforced by the
to animation by a less expensive human resource; there- following presentation in which a senior academic elabo-
after, the video can be used at any future session, even if rates about various elements of the animation, and
the senior professor is unable to attend. relates it all to the A3 handout depicting the whole
Our goal was to provide engaging representations of industrial machine [9] (Figs. 2 and 3).
the key concepts and principles. In one of our animated Within our animations, we have aimed to keep the
videos, a narrator discusses the history of peer review as text to a minimum, and almost all of the informative
being like a great industrial machine that has built-up content is presented by the narrated voice-over. This is
and evolved over time [20]. As the narrator recounts the in keeping with Reed’s principles of modality and
history, parts of the machine are added or changed. The redundancy:
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 7 of 12

Fig. 5 Screenshot from animated history of peer review—simple system circa 1665

be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible,

“Modality principle: Students learn better from without the need for adaptation or specialized design”
animation and narration than from animation and on- [23].
screen text.” For example, our slides were produced in view of the
universal design features of multiple means of represen-
tation, larger fonts, and higher contrasts.
“Redundancy principle: Students learn better from We encountered some challenges designing for a uni-
animation and narration than from animation, versal audience. Following our first session of Author-
narration, and on-screen text [22].” ship and Publication, one participant complained (fairly)
that our animations were difficult for participants with
varying sensory abilities and s/he could not follow the
Universal design material. Our response to this dilemma was to make the
We want to ensure that our courses are accessible to all content available in multiple parallel formats to suit a
researchers at our institution. To that end, we have de- range of learners. We created a course book that con-
signed these courses in view of the principles of univer- denses all of the animated information into static text
sal design—“the design of products and environments to and images, allowing some participants to choose to

Fig. 6 Screenshot from animated history of peer review—credit for peer review 2013
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 8 of 12

Fig. 7 Screenshot from animated history of peer review—peer review as we know it 2017

read rather than watch the moving screens. Participants each session, in addition to our core presentation team,
can now choose the learning materials that are best for gave the course a high operating cost and was not a sus-
them. The complainant expressed that s/he was happy tainable long-term solution. We understand that these
with this response. Moreover, this solution has proved sorts of challenges—involving faculty in centralised re-
helpful for some other participants—notably inter- search integrity training—are common [24]. However,
national students—for whom the courses were initially we have since found one potential solution. Since the be-
too fast paced. ginning of 2017, we have conducted video interviews
with senior academics from different disciplines and edi-
Involving senior faculty ted together these interviews into short video clips to
For research integrity training to be successful, there show as part of our courses (Fig. 8). This solution retains
needs to be buy-in from academics from a range of dis- many of the benefits of involving senior faculty voices in
ciplines. Participants must see that research integrity is the workshops and can be used, sustainably, for our on-
not merely an “add-on” or something promoted by ad- going training in the longer term. We have also made
ministrators or management, but something deeply val- the full versions of the interviews available to our partic-
ued by the professors they see as mentors, and with ipants online to promote extended learning [25–31].
whom they interact on a regular basis [1]. Involving fac- Participants get a small taste of the different videos in
ulty in research integrity training is crucial, since their the session itself, and can then watch the longer videos
expertise adds legitimacy, and they provide disciplinary about various topics online after the session, depending
context to the principles [24]. on their needs or interests.
In developing our courses, we sought the involvement The video interviews covered the topics of authorship,
of senior academics from all faculties at our institution: publication, peer review, and other innovations in pub-
Health, Science and Engineering, Education, Creative In- lishing. We asked 7 senior academics a set of 13 ques-
dustries, Law, and the QUT Business School. In particu- tions each [Appendix]. We then edited the interviews
lar, we involved Faculty-based Research Integrity together into thematic clips. The videos complement the
Advisors, senior academics at our institution, whose role core materials by encouraging participants to think
includes providing advice about research integrity. about research integrity through the lens of real-world
For the first iteration of Authorship and Publication, skills they will need as researchers—for example, com-
we asked a number of our Research Integrity Advisors munication and conflict resolution. These videos help
to present as part of a panel at each session. Our partici- meet our goal of embedding the principles of research
pant feedback surveys showed that these sessions were integrity into research discussions more generally.
well received, but, as mentioned previously, they were Another benefit of these videos is that academics typ-
not as well received as the faster-paced multimedia ses- ically present research integrity more flexibly than pro-
sions. Moreover, a training review concluded that for fessional staff, who sometimes feel compelled to present
groups with a maximum of 100 participants at a time, the principles of policies and codes of practice to the let-
inviting three senior academics to present in-person at ter. The flexible approach may well come across as more
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 9 of 12

Fig. 8 Sample set of interview clips with Research Integrity Advisors shown at sessions

realistic in the evolving research climate [32]. We are Maximising participation

keen to not perpetuate a common perception by re- Neither of the courses described in this paper is compul-
searchers “that ethics and integrity is all about bureau- sory. As with most non-compulsory courses, we faced is-
cracy, which is an unhealthy thing for really achieving sues of participation.
research integrity” [33]. Our videos of researchers pre- The first time we offered Authorship and Publica-
senting real-world anecdotes bring the principles of re- tion in 2017, we were encouraged to find that our
search integrity down to earth and help avoid the maximum registration allowance—200 registrants—-
potential pitfall of promoting unrealistic bureaucratic was filled overnight, as soon as the course was first
principles. advertised. However, as it turned out, only 99 of
One further benefit of having the video clips is that these 200 registrants actually attended the sessions,
they can be used to represent every faculty at every ses- and we were quite discouraged by this rate of attri-
sion. Prior to the videos, in our 2016 sessions when tion. We have since discovered, through conversa-
three academics attended each Strategies session in per- tions with training providers within our institution
son, some faculties were inevitably not represented—a and more broadly, that this is a common problem,
fact that trainees from underrepresented faculties some- and we have employed a number of strategies to im-
times pointed out on our feedback surveys. The videos prove the rate of attendance, including an invitation
helped us mitigate that problem of representation. to all academic staff from the Deputy Vice Chancel-
lor (Research and Commercialisation), banner adver-
tisements on the university’s intranet, invitations to
Course development collaboration Heads of Schools, and a very short video “teaser
Large institutions tend to have several professional divi- trailer” of the course that we included in the invita-
sions, and each of these may provide training somewhat tions and advertising materials. As shown in Table 3,
independently of the others. For that reason, it some- these interventions appear to have improved the rate
times happens that research integrity training is con- of attendance.
ducted independently of other research training To provide context for these attendance figures, the
initiatives within the institution. This is not ideal, since, number of enrolled higher degree research (HDR) stu-
as we have discussed, integrating research integrity train- dents (the main target for our sessions) at QUT was in
ing with other kinds of research training can benefit the range of 2100–2700 at any given time between
learners. 2016 and 2017.
Our collaboration between the Office of Research Eth-
ics and Integrity and the Library has benefited not only Table 3 Registration and participation for Authorship and
the academic participants of the workshop but also the Publication and Journal Peer Review (excluding school
professional staff who developed the course materials by roadshow sessions), 2016 and 2017
fostering a broader and more integrated picture of re- Year # registrants # participants % participation
search training. In short, our experience is that much is 2016 787 373 47%
to be gained and nothing to be lost by collaborating in
2017 511 284 56%
the development of research training programs.
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 10 of 12

Taking the course to those who need it situation is improving; a 2017 meta-analysis by Watts et
Because our courses are not compulsory, we are sure al. included “66 empirical studies consisting of 106 ethics
that some of those who most need the training do not courses” [5].
come. To mitigate this problem, we have taken the train- Evaluating the effectiveness of research integrity train-
ing on “school roadshows”, where it is offered at discip- ing is a challenging task because although it is reason-
linary schools within faculties at QUT where certain ably straightforward to survey participants about the
research integrity issues have arisen and where there is delivery of a course, it is more difficult to assess whether
an expectation from the Heads of Schools that re- learning has occurred [40] and more difficult still to
searchers should attend. So far, we have had 66 partici- determine whether training has affected behaviors and
pants at these sessions. These sessions have also given improved an institution’s research culture in the longer
us a chance to customise elements of our presentation term.
to particular audiences. For example, instances of pla- Studies show the value of “conducting broad, systema-
giarism can be quite different between, say, fine arts, tical evaluation efforts in regular intervals to allow for
mathematics, and information technology. benchmarking the effects of ethics education programs
overtime” [4] and the importance of employing rigorous
Next steps evaluative methods [41].
Peer-to-peer initiatives and participation We will incorporate the findings of previous research
Just as important as including senior faculty as role to implement formal evaluations of our courses.
models is encouraging peer-to-peer discussion about re-
search integrity. To promote cultural change, re- Expanding our course offerings
searchers need to see research integrity as a core value Authorship and Publication and Journal Peer Review
of their own cohort. Peer-to-peer learning may be par- have been included as a core part of QUT’s integrity
ticularly important for higher degree research students training, and we will continue to offer these courses on
[34]. This is something we are aiming to facilitate in fu- an ongoing basis. We are also expanding our training of-
ture iterations of the course. ferings to include research data management, which we
To date, we have provided some opportunities for are currently developing in collaboration with QUT Li-
interaction between peers in our courses—for example, brary, High Performance Computing, and all faculties
by asking participants to discuss case studies and to vote across our institution.
(using sticky notes) on emerging practices in peer review
that they thought were most interesting or most impor- Conclusions
tant—an idea we borrowed from a voting activity by Research integrity training at academic institutions is
Bosman and Kramer [35]. But we believe we could do important, but there is little consensus about how it
more to promote peer-to-peer learning. One option we should be designed or conducted [1–5]. It is vital that
will consider is to adopt elements of the “ResBaz” [36] institutions share learnings, and the experience we have
and “Software Carpentry” [37] teaching styles that are outlined in this paper may serve as a starting point for
modelled on peer-to-peer skills teaching. Others have institutions looking to begin developing, or to expand,
already incorporated some elements of research integrity their research integrity training.
training into programs of this style—for example, some We have described the development of integrated re-
sections of the successful “Library Carpentry” [38] search integrity courses to complement the more spe-
course, and a newer offering developed partly by QUT cific research integrity training that is the topic of a
staff involved in the courses described here called, “The compulsory online course. Our new courses are “inte-
21st Century Academic: Smart, Savvy and Social” [39]. grated” in the sense that although they promote research
integrity, they are not explicitly about research integrity.
Measuring the effectiveness of these courses These courses are framed in the context of researchers’
We have conducted pre- and post-session participant goals in terms of publications and peer review, and the
feedback surveys that have helped us refine our courses principles of research integrity have been carefully inte-
over time, but these do not constitute a formal evalu- grated, as if by stealth, within that context. By designing
ation of our training. research integrity training in this way, we have strived to
Measuring the effectiveness of training in the respon- make a norm of good practices in authorship, publica-
sible conduct of research is an emerging field. Historic- tion, and peer review and to promote cultural change in
ally, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area research, consistent with the goals of our institution.
have been limited by the fact that although a large num- To give our courses a coherent structure, we have de-
ber of studies have discussed ethics training, far fewer signed diagrams—“conceptual maps”—to tie all the vari-
studies have included explicit evaluations [4]. This ous aspects of the topics together. The subway diagram
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 11 of 12

for Authorship and Publication [13], and the industrial ● Do you ever act as a peer reviewer? About how
machine for Journal Peer Review [14], are available often?
under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 Licence, and we ● How did you first start out as a peer reviewer? How
hope that other institutions may use and improve upon did you learn?
them. ● What advice would you give an early career
We have found that the integrated training model has researcher about being a peer reviewer?
broad appeal among our researchers. In the past 2 years, ● Responding to peer review? Tips?
these new courses, although voluntary, have attracted Anything else
723 participants, and the demand continues. ● In your view, what are the biggest opportunities and
We attribute the interest in these training sessions not innovations in publishing and peer review?
only to the integrated method but also to the careful de- ● We’ve covered authorship and peer review. Is there any
sign of the course materials and involvement of aca- practice in research that you’d like to comment on?
demic staff in selected aspects of the training. We have
Acknowledgements
developed fast-paced multimedia training courses that The following individuals comprised the core training development and
give a holistic overview of academic publishing and Jour- presentation team: Virginia Barbour, Stephanie Bradbury, Paula Callan, Philippa
nal Peer Review, and connect participants with tools and Frame, Mark Hooper, Jane Jacobs, Ashley Steele, Melissa Tate, and Anne Walsh.
The following individuals were the guest presenters (live or on video): Adrian
resources to find out more about any of the topics cov- Barnett, Ilana Bolingford, Bianca Capra, Kerry Carrington, Michael Collins, Stuart
ered, according to their needs or interests. This training Cunningham, Kathryn Fairfull-Smith, Marcus Foth, Nicholas Graves, Kristiann
method suits our researchers who are typically quite Heesch, Katya Henry, Shane Mathews, Paula McDonald, Kathy Mills, Nerida
Quatermass, Jonathan Roberts, Robert Schweitzer, Kirsten Spann, Sharron
capable of self-directed learning, but sometimes lack a Stapleton, Jessica Stevens, Jennifer Thomas, Ellen Thompson, Kerryann Walsh,
birds-eye view of the academic publishing environment, and Michael Wolfe. The following individuals provided their feedback on the
and are often unaware of all the tools and resources that draft manuscript: Ashley Steele and Melissa Tate.
are available to support them.
Funding
There is a need for further work to understand how Not applicable.
best to develop and deliver research integrity training.
We have not formally assessed the effectiveness of these Availability of data and materials
Research data sharing is not applicable to this article as no research datasets
courses, and we recognise the importance of employing were generated or analysed during the current study.
rigorous evaluation methods to assess the outcomes of
training courses over time; that will be our next step. Authors’ contributions
MH drafted the manuscript, was part of the team that designed the training,
designed the handouts and some videos, and analysed feedback data. VB
critically revised the manuscript, was part of the team that designed the
Appendix training, and presented at the sessions. AW critically revised the manuscript,
Questions asked for the recorded interviews with academics was part of the team that designed the training, and presented at the
sessions. JJ critically revised the manuscript and provided leadership over the
Authorship development of the training. SB critically revised the manuscript, was part of
● How does authorship work in your discipline? For the team that designed the training, and presented at the sessions. All
example: authors read and approved the final manuscript.
○ When is authorship discussed? Ethics approval and consent to participate
○ How do you decide who will be an author? Not applicable.
○ How is the order of author decided?
● Do you have any writing tips for early career Consent for publication
Written consent was given from all whose photos appear in this manuscript.
researchers?
● Ever had problems with respect to authorship? Dis- Competing interests
putes? Difficulties? Challenges? How did you re- Virginia Barbour is on the Editorial Board of Research Integrity and Peer
Review. She was the Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
solve? What is the biggest challenge in authorship? until May 2017 and was a Trustee of COPE until November 2017. All authors
Journals are employed by the Queensland University of Technology.
● How do you think an early career researcher should
decide where to publish? (i.e. in what journals or Publisher’s Note
publications?) Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
● Have you had papers rejected? What do you do if published maps and institutional affiliations.

your paper is rejected? Received: 14 September 2017 Accepted: 15 February 2018

● Any other tips about submitting papers?
Peer review
References
● What’s your experience with the publishing peer re- 1. Anderson MA. Pedagogical support for responsible conduct of research
view system? What do you think of it? training. Hast Cent Rep (0093-0334). 2016;46(1):20.
Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Page 12 of 12

2. Todd EM, Watts LL, Mulhearn TJ, et al. A meta-analytic comparison of face- 28. Hooper M, Steele A, Tate M, Walsh A, Barbour V, Bradbury S, Callan P.
to-face and online delivery in ethics instruction: the case for a hybrid Journal Peer Review: advice to early career researchers (version 1). figshare.
approach. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; [Link] 2018. [Link]
3. Hyytinen H, Löfström. Reactively, proactively, implicitly, explicitly? Academics’ 29. Hooper M, Barbour V, Walsh A, Tate M, Steele A, Callan P, Bradbury S.
pedagogical conceptions of how to promote research ethics and integrity. E J Responding to peer review: interviews with QUT researchers (Version 1).
Acad Ethics. 2017; [Link] figshare. 2018. [Link]
4. Antes AL, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, 30. Hooper M, Walsh A, Tate M, Steele A, Barbour V, Bradbury S, Callan P.
Devenport LD. A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the Journal Peer Review: starting out, interviews with QUT researchers (Version
sciences. Ethics and Behavior. 2009;19(5):379–402. 1). figshare. 2018. [Link]
5. Watts LL, Medeiros KE, Mulhearn TJ, Steele LM, Connelly S, Mumford MD. Are 31. Hooper M, Barbour V, Steele A, Walsh A, Tate M, Bradbury S, Callan P.
ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and Journal Peer Review: thoughts about the system, interviews with QUT
present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior. 2017;27(5):351–84. researchers (version 1). figshare. 2018. [Link]
[Link] 5816592.v1.
6. Steneck NH. ORI: introduction to the responsible conduct of research. 32. Zigmond MJ, Fisher. Teaching responsible conduct responsibly. J Microbiol
Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 2007. Educ. 2014;15(2):83–7.
7. Hollander RD, Arenberg CR, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 33. Rawnsley, A. Quoted in: Epigeum Ltd, "Research Integrity" online training
Ethics education and scientific and engineering research: what’s been course. Module 1.06. Published July 2012. [Link]
learned? What should be done? Summary of a workshop. Washington, D.C: courses/research/research-integrity/.
National Academies Press; 2009. 34. Batty C, Sinclair J. Peer-to-peer learning in the higher degree by research
8. Pimple KD. Online integrity training falls short. Nature. 2013;495:449. context: a creative writing case study. New Writing. 2014;11(3):335–46.
9. Faden RR, Kass NE, Klag MJ, Krag SS. On the importance of research ethics 35. Bosman J, Kramer B. How open is your peer review?. 2016. figshare. https://
and mentoring. Am J Bioeth. 2002;2(4):50–1. [Link]/10.6084/[Link].4210254.v1. Retrieved: 12 June 2017.
10. Plemmons DK, Kalichman MW. Mentoring for responsible research: the 36. Research Bazaar 2017. [Link] Accessed 20 July 2017.
creation of a curriculum for faculty to teach RCR in the research environment. 37. Software Carpentry: Teaching basic lab skills for research computing.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; [Link] [Link] Accessed 20 July 2017.
11. Lee A, Boud D. Framing doctoral education as practice. In: Boud D, Lee A, 38. Library Carpentry: Software skills for library professionals. https://
editors. Changing practices of doctoral education. New York: Routledge; [Link]/. Accessed 20 July 2017.
2009. p. 10–26. 39. Barbour V, Simons N. The 21st academic: smart, savvy, and social. https://
12. Bradbury S, Hooper M, Barbour G, Tate M, Walsh A, Steele A, Callan P. [Link]/weaverbel/21CAsss/blob/master/[Link]. Accessed 20 July
Authorship and Publication. figshare. 2018. [Link] 2017.
figshare.5801682.v1. 40. McGee R. Evaluation in RCR training—are you achieving what you hope
13. Hooper M, Barbour V, Steele A, Walsh A, Tate M, Bradbury S, Callan P. for? Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education. 2014;15(2):117.
Authorship and Publication. figshare. 2018. [Link] 41. Mumford MD, Steele L, Watts LL. Evaluating ethics education programs: a
figshare.c.3980448. multilevel approach. Ethics & Behavior. 2015;25(1):37–60.
14. Hooper M, Steele A, Tate M, Barbour G, Walsh A, Bradbury S, Callan P. [Link]
Journal Peer Review. figshare. 2018. [Link]
3980439.
15. Langlais PJ, Bent BJ. Individual and organizational predictors of the ethicality
of graduate students’ responses to research integrity issues. Sci Eng Ethics.
2013. [Link]
16. Bradbury S, Callan P, Hooper M, Steele A, Tate M, Walsh A, Barbour V.
Journal Peer Review. figshare. 2018. [Link]
5782815.v1.
17. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrant. On the Horizon. 2001;9(5):1–6.
18. Mayer RE. Introduction to multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE, editor. The
Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2014. p. 43–71.
19. Lowe RK. Animation and learning: value for money? In: Atkinson R, Mcbeath
C, Jonas-Dwyer D, Phillips R, editors. Beyond the comfort zone: proceedings
of the 21st ASCILITE Conference. Perth: ASCILITE; 2004. p. 558–61.
20. Hooper M. Journal Peer Review: a history. figshare. 2018. [Link]
6084/[Link].5816595.v1.
21. Hooper M. Authorship and Publication: agreeing on authorship. figshare.
2018. [Link]
22. Reed SK. Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educ Psychol.
2010;41(2):90–1.
23. The center for universal design, NC State University. [Link]
ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm Accessed 20 July 2017. Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
24. Bird SJ. Involving faculty in the teaching the responsible conduct of and we will help you at every step:
research. Teaching Ethics. 2012;12(2):65–75.
25. Hooper M, Bradbury S, Barbour V, Callan P, Walsh A, Steele A, Tate M. • We accept pre-submission inquiries
Authorship: interviews with QUT researchers (version 1). figshare. 2018. • Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
[Link] • We provide round the clock customer support
26. Hooper M, Walsh A, Barbour V, Bradbury S, Steele A, Callan P. Authorship
and Publication: tips for submitting papers, interviews with QUT researchers • Convenient online submission
(Version 1). figshare. 2018. [Link] • Thorough peer review
27. Hooper M, Barbour V, Bradbury S, Walsh A, Tate M, Callan P, Steele A. • Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
Authorship and Publication: deciding where to publish, interviews with QUT
researchers (version 2). figshare. 2018. [Link] • Maximum visibility for your research
5812743.v2.
Submit your manuscript at
[Link]/submit