The first year of study is very exciting for many students. Everything is new: the school, your schedule, the teachers, and your fellow students. How can a university ensure a smooth transition for first-year students? For this, Inholland launched the Students for Students (S4S) project in the 2019-2020 academic year. In this project, second-year students (studentcoaches) support first-year students with their studies. They do this based on their own experience and the training they receive during their year as studentcoaches. Research shows that peer-mentoring is very successful in aiding first-year students through their first year of the study program. Peer-mentoring has the potential to increase well-being, social bonding, the feeling of belonging, and student resilience. It also ensures smoother academic integration, as peer-mentoring focuses on developing academic skills as well. Additionally, a studentcoach is often a low threshold point of contact for students where they can go with questions.
The participating universities and their associated partners under the Committed project have formulated the following recommendations to help the European legislators create a coherent system in educating and preparing the HEIs for proper handling of compliance risks and issues in research and education activities. To lay down the fundamentals of a uniform, European export compliance andrisk management system for higher education and scientific research, the project members scrutinized the currently existing and effective European regulations, the European Commission’s recommendation in this subject and the respective national rules, and also U.S. legislation in the field of deemed export.
Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity.
MULTIFILE
