What are the best practices? (Has Best Practice)
From The Embassy of Good Science
[
According to the newest WHO (World Health Organization) research [https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2012/05/who-report-reveals-teenagers-do-not-get-a-fair-deal-on-health], teenagers do not get a fair deal when it comes to health. The survey gathered information from young students about their health and well-being, as well as their social situations and behavior. Adolescent health inequalities can lead to long-term inequalities in adulthood. Adolescence is unquestionably a critical period for mental health, particularly for girls. Predictably, family support is linked to a healthier lifestyle, including improved communication with parents, increased support from classmates, and a larger number of close friends. This has been found to lead to improved mental health. The report shows that addressing the social determinants of health inequalities in childhood and adolescence can enable young people to maximize their health and well-being, ensuring that these inequalities do not extend into adulthood, with all of the potential negative consequences for individuals and society. +
What should we do, then, if we experience imposter syndrome? There might not be a single -effective strategy to minimize it. Yet, new evidence indicates that reframing might be effective. One option is to introduce the idea of imposter syndrome to graduate students. By doing this, you might highlight the idea that imposter syndrome is a natural emotion and let go of the shame that goes along with it. Students may be able to adopt a growth mindset toward their sense of belonging by reframing their experience and using guided reflection exercises to facilitate discussion and support of this experience [5].
References:
# Villwock JA, Sobin LB, Koester LA, Harris TM. Impostor syndrome and burnout among American medical students: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2016; 7: 364-9.
# Sakulku J, Alexander J. The impostor phenomenon. J Behav Sci. 2011; 6 (1): 75-97.
# Sverdlik A, CHall N, McAlpine L. PhD imposter syndrome: Exploring antecedents, consequences, and implications for doctoral well-being. Int J Dr Stud. 2020; 15: 737-58.
# Kernan W, Bogart J, Wheat ME. Health-related barriers to learning among graduate students. Health Educ. 2011; 111 (5): 425-45.
# Morgenstern BZ, Beck Dallaghan G. Should medical educators help learners reframe imposterism? Teach Learn Med. 2021; 33 (4): 445-52.
Lauren A. Mason. +
The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that there is no universal hierarchy of values. A guideline or algorithm cannot simply resolve the dilemma'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A6-QINU`"'. But, a dilemma (‘tragedy’) can be the start of reflection and improvement. Depending on the severity of the situation and the impact of your choice, consider the following:
*Informal discussion with peers
*Consult your supervisor or mentor
*Check a code of conduct or guideline
*Consult a confidentiality advisor
*Discuss it with ‘neutral outsiders’, friends or family
*Analyse the dilemma in more detail, e.g. by [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|moral case deliberation]]
*Is there a rearrangement of practices that can remove the tragedy (Hegel’s question)?
'"`UNIQ--references-000000A7-QINU`"' +
'''Networks'''
*[https://allea.org/ ALLEA] (All European Academies)
*[https://amsterdamresearchclimate.nl/ ARCA] (Amsterdam Research Climate)
*[https://publicationethics.org/ COPE] (The Committee on Publication Ethics )
*[https://ease.org.uk/about-us/ EASE] (The European Association of Science Editors)
*[http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ ENAI] (European Network for Academic Integrity)
*[http://eneri.eu/ ENERI] (European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity)
*[http://www.enohe.net/ ENOHE] (European Network of Ombuds in Higher Education)
*[http://www.enrio.eu/ ENRIO] (European Network for Research Integrity Officers)
*[https://www.eosc-portal.eu/ EOSC] (European Open Science Cloud)
*[https://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research)
*[http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html EUREC] (European Network of Research Ethics Committees )
*[https://irafpa.org/en/ IRAFPA] (Institute of Research and Action on Fraud and Plagiarism in Academia)
*[https://lari.lu/ LARI] (the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity)
*[https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-integrity-and-ethics/ Science Europe]
*[https://www.wcrif.org/ WCRIF] (World Conference on Research Integrity Foundation)
'''Projects'''
*[http://entireconsortium.eu/ EnTIRE] (Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of REsearch)
*[https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ FOSTER] (Fostering the practical implementation of Open Science)
*[http://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY]
*[https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/ INSPIRE] (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research Integrity to set an Example)
*[https://on-merrit.eu/ ON-MERRIT] (Observing and Negating Matthew Effects in Responsible Research & Innovation Transition)
*[https://www.openaire.eu/ OpenAIRE]
*[https://www.path2integrity.eu/ Path2Integrity]
*[https://printeger.eu/ Printeger] (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research)
*[https://satoriproject.eu/ SATORI]
*[https://www.sops4ri.eu/ SOPs4RI] (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity)
*[http://trust-project.eu/ TRUST]
*[http://virt2ueconsortium.eu/ VIRT2UE] (Virtue-based ethics and Integrity of Research: Train-the-Trainer program for Upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)
*The [https://prores-project.eu/ PRO-RES] Framework for Ethical Evidence
Asking permission and consent for acknowledging persons and for the wording of the acknowledgement. +
One example of adaption of open peer review policies in seen in BMC series journals. BMC begun with open peer review in 1999, and since then has promoted the benefits of peer review and developed different variations and options in peer review system. On top of that, they have decided to move beyond “prescription” of peer review patterns and instructions, and have started publishing a journal called Research Integrity and Peer Review, whose main focus is on research on peer review. Recently, the very same journal has published an article on guidelines for the implementation of open peer review, with a checklist aimed at making the implementation of peer review easier. This was developed mostly for editors, but for those who are still unfamiliar with open peer review, there are plenty of long (e.g. FOSTER course on open peer review) and short'"`UNIQ--ref-00000092-QINU`"' educational materials.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000093-QINU`"' +
Shortcomings in the current system have led to discussions in the SSH community with the aim of addressing the challenges and implementing some changes. In February 2020, the European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (ENRESSH) provided a report, an “[https://enressh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Hoffman-Holowiecki-Holm-Ochsner-Overview-of-Peer-Review-Practices-in-the-SSH.pdf Overview of Peer Review Practices in the SSH]” '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A1-QINU`"'. The report stressed that, in contrast to STEM, SSH disciplines are more heterogeneous in their publication outputs. This makes it difficult to define and evaluate research methodologies, which, subsequently, leads to a lack of consensus when it comes to the criteria for assessing the quality of research outputs '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A2-QINU`"'. The report states that copying the evaluation models that exist for STEM disciplines is not the best response '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A3-QINU`"'. However, some argue that certain practices, such as open peer review, could apply to SSH. The advantages of open peer review are that it would speed up the publication process and enable dialogue between authors and readers '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A4-QINU`"'.
In order to speed up the review process, the report offers other suggestions, including, limiting the length of manuscripts, limiting the number of publications per researcher or institution and recruiting more reviewers '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A5-QINU`"'. In addition, the SSH community could learn from new peer review models in STEM subjects, and seek to apply them if possible '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A6-QINU`"'. Although SSH disciplines are heterogeneous, there is a call for general standards and principles for peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A7-QINU`"', in order to ensure “timeliness, transparency and verifiability” '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A8-QINU`"'.
Even though the SSH tend to be slower to respond to calls for change when compared with STEM disciplines, some journals and platforms have been adapting to recent developments in peer review systems, including 1) Kairos, which adopted a three-stage review process '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A9-QINU`"', 2) Palgrave Macmillian, which has trialed open peer review trial '"`UNIQ--ref-000002AA-QINU`"' and open publishing '"`UNIQ--ref-000002AB-QINU`"', and 3) Wellcome Open Research, which provides post-publication peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000002AC-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-000002AD-QINU`"'
The most famous practice example of post publication peer review system is [https://f1000.com/ F1000], which is not a traditional journal, but more of an open science platform where published articles can be modified. New versions are uploaded online, with references to previous versions and changes. Moreover, the entire peer review process is transparent from the beginning to the end of the procedure. In that way, the manuscripts can be changed and adapted to include new insights. However, there are some critics who point out that it is a problem that previous versions of the article are still available online to anyone, even if they contain flawed reporting. Recent research has been discouraging for PPPR. It showed that online comments in PLOS and BMC journals decline in frequency and that existing comments rarely contain anything related to the content of the article.
In addition, PubPeer is considered as one of the major platforms designed for post-publication peer review and also conversations about publications. Users can leave comments with their ORCID username or anonymously.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C3-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000000C4-QINU`"' +
The Belmont report, '"`UNIQ--ref-000001E9-QINU`"' the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-000001EA-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001EB-QINU`"' +
Asking participants questions about the study and what they expect from it can reveal gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Taking time to ensure a realistic understanding of the study aims and outcomes is essential for the informed consent process and helps prevent participants dropping out. +
There have been discussions regarding potential risks for research in sites such as Central Asian region that includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – countries with authoritarian regimes.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000254-QINU`"' One of the examples that can adequately present what type of risk researchers can encounter is the arrest and accusation for espionage of Alexander Sodiqov, a Tajik citizen and political science PhD student at the University of Toronto, in Tajikistan in 2014 during his fieldwork on conflict resolution.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000255-QINU`"' Sodiqov was arrested while interviewing Tajik civil society leaders and he spent five weeks in jail.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000256-QINU`"' His colleagues in Canada maintained that this event implied that research in Tajikistan is “under threat”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000257-QINU`"' This case shows that researchers must be aware of potential risks that await them at their fieldwork. In order to handle them adequately, they need to plan a strategy before embarking upon a field research. This is where advice and recommendations from the research community can be very useful. However, there is a lack of uniform guidelines that would cover all the categories of fieldwork in dangerous zones and that would specify all potential risks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000258-QINU`"'
Some researchers with experience in fieldwork offer their advice and recommendations individually. The most important part is pre-departure planning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000259-QINU`"' Before the actual fieldwork, researchers should be able to understand the local context well'"`UNIQ--ref-0000025A-QINU`"' and know their legal rights as foreign scholars conducting research.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000025B-QINU`"' Engaging local contacts for some insights regarding potential risks can also be helpful.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000025C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000025D-QINU`"' One of the most important things while conducting research is to protect confidentiality and anonymity of the participants at any cost, even to the detriment of other research objectives.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000025E-QINU`"'
The European Commission (EC) has also offered a list of recommendations for research in regions or countries of high risks for researchers and participants. The EC also emphasizes the importance of making a clear strategy for keeping their research participants and themselves safe.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000025F-QINU`"' With regards to that, a risk assessment has to be made and it should include details of safety measures the researchers are planning to take, for example training for staff and insurance cover.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000260-QINU`"' It is also important for researchers to provide justification in their ethics self-assessment for choosing an approach or site of research that involves higher risk, explain why alternative approaches are not possible, identify the potential risks and show how they intend to mitigate these risks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000261-QINU`"'
The necessity of conducting research in sites that pose risk to researchers and research participants compels policy-makers, universities and funding agencies, in collaboration with researchers experienced in fieldwork in risk zones, to formulate clear and precise guidelines and recommendations on the topic.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000262-QINU`"'
Informed consent is an explicit agreement between the researcher and the subject, where the researcher promises not to reveal the identity or the personal data of the subject. +
The training of forensic anthropologists is usually associated with archaeology, with little or no contact with human remains that are not skeletonized. Education is important for the proper implementation of ethical principles. So, it is necessary to educate forensic anthropologists in practical skills, and moral and legal responsibilities brought about by their work.
Moreover, when talking about forensic anthropology there are few international or national associations with formal codes of ethics like the American Board of Forensic Anthropology, the British Association for Forensic Anthropology, and the International Forensic Center of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide. These associations provide broad guidelines about behavior but little attention to practice '"`UNIQ--ref-000001DD-QINU`"' .
'"`UNIQ--references-000001DE-QINU`"' +
Clear protocols should be followed from planning through reporting. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research [https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2014/09000/Standards_for_Reporting_Qualitative_Research__A.21.aspx]. These standards assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings. +
Researchers must always consider mitigation strategies to overcome challenges that occur when it comes to involving children with disabilities in research and to do it in an ethical and respectful way. For meaningful participation, the individual capacities of each child involved must be considered at all stages of the research cycle, to ensure that processes are suitable for the diverse competencies, knowledge, interests, access, needs and contexts of all children involved. +
There are some guidelines and recommendations available on how to handle incidental findings in the social sciences and the humanities. The APA Committee on Human Research, for example, suggests including potential incidental findings in a researcher’s study plan or project proposal, with details about the threshold for reporting them '"`UNIQ--ref-0000013B-QINU`"'. The European Commission’s “[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020_ethics-soc-science-humanities_en.pdf Ethics in Social Sciences and Humanities]” also suggests that researchers should consider potential incidental findings in their research '"`UNIQ--ref-0000013C-QINU`"'. They should draft a policy for coping with these findings and discuss them with their consortium, taking into account the legal context in which they are conducting their research, and, if appropriate, liaising with the legal department of their host institution. Furthermore, researchers should also inform the participants about the limits of confidentiality '"`UNIQ--ref-0000013D-QINU`"'. The European Commission also released their “[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/guide_research-refugees-migrants_en.pdf Guidance note — Research on refugees, asylum seekers & migrants]”, intended to help researchers in the social sciences and the humanities deal with incidental research findings when they relate to specific vulnerable populations '"`UNIQ--ref-0000013E-QINU`"'. When human research subjects are refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, the European Commission recommends that researchers contact the relevant NGOs rather than the authorities '"`UNIQ--ref-0000013F-QINU`"'. In order to mitigate the potential power differences between researchers and participants, the European Commission advises that projects involving these specific vulnerable populations should look to include researchers with a refugee or migrant background or, at least, researchers from the same culture. When the participants are unaccompanied minors, researchers should also contact National Refugee Councils for legal advice, psychological and interpretive support, and legally assigned supervision '"`UNIQ--ref-00000140-QINU`"'.
Researchers in the biomedical and health sciences also require guidance regarding the management and communication of incidental findings '"`UNIQ--ref-00000141-QINU`"'. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in 2013 issued a report, stating that researchers should communicate potential incidental findings as part of the informed consent process '"`UNIQ--ref-00000142-QINU`"'. In addition, researchers should make a plan to evaluate and manage anticipatable and un-anticipatable incidental findings and seek the approval of the relevant institutional review board '"`UNIQ--ref-00000143-QINU`"'. It is important that researchers inform the participants about the potential un-anticipatable incidental findings. If such findings occur, researchers should assess their importance and consult with experts on the matter '"`UNIQ--ref-00000144-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000145-QINU`"'
Throughout the world, different practices have been developed to protect the interest of children participating in clinical trials. In the United States, researchers have to ask permission from both minors and their parents or legal guardians. Permission from minors has to be definitive and the lack of objections cannot be defined as assent. When asking for assent, researchers should present all relevant information in a simple and understandable language, according to the child’s level of understanding (1). In the European Union, different practices exist, and some countries provide different legal and mandatory or recommended ages for assent (review of practices provided in tools section). In some situations, giving informed consent is not necessary. For example, when the only treatment for a disease is only available through clinical trials.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' +
The idea of written informed consent is not new. It first appeared in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century in Walter Reed’s research of yellow fever.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001C4-QINU`"' The development of human rights after the second World War brought to life numerous declarations and rules (e.g., the Nuremberg Code) regarding human experimentation.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001C5-QINU`"'
In order for informed consent to be valid, four conditions need to be met'"`UNIQ--ref-000001C6-QINU`"':
*Voluntariness: subjects should not be coerced. This could be a tricky condition sometimes, especially when subjects have no alternative choice (e.g., when a terminally ill patient is offered to join an experiment that might save their life)
*Capacity: subjects should have the capacity to understand and judge provided information. This could become a thorny issue when dealin with vulnerable subjects (e.g., children) or patients with mental problems (e.g., those suffering from illnesses such as dimensia)
*Information: subjects should be provided with adequate amount of information. These may include methodology, process, duration of the experiment, but also research goals, beneficiaries, data retention schedule, others uses of extracted data (e.g., publication of research articles, use of material in tangent projects, etc.).
*Comprehension: subjects should understand the provided information. Relevant considerations include using straightforward language that is understandable for the least advantaged members of the target group, and avoding the use of scientific jargon.
Before accepting a manuscript for publication, editors should make sure authors have all the necessary research ethics permissions and signed informed consent forms from all participants.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001C7-QINU`"' +
From the end of the 1990s some research institutions and journals began to establish and develop rules and guidelines for research in online setting. In 1999 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a report [https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/report2.pdf Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet] which emphasized the importance of using informed consent with disclosure of the risks and benefits of the research to the human subject. To this day, the AAAS report is considered “a benchmark” reference for the Internet research ethics .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000054-QINU`"'
In the past few years, organizations such as [https://aoir.org/ethics/ The Association of Internet Researchers], [https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online The British Educational Research Association], [https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20-%20Files/Ethics%20Guidelines%20for%20Internet-mediated%20Research%20(2017).pdf The British Psychological Society] and [https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/a-guide-to-internet-research-ethics/ The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees], have also released guidelines with aim of providing frameworks for researchers facing ethical challenges in online research. While most of them stress the necessity of informed consent, some highlight obstacles and difficulties in obtaining it. For example, when children and other vulnerable groups are involved in research, the consent must be obtained from their parent or guardian. Also, children might pretend to be their parents, which would make the consent invalid.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000055-QINU`"' Researchers working with children online must respect also the [https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)] and when collecting children’s personal data, they must clarify how they intend to use the information.
Another important issue is securing participants’ anonymity. Although complete anonymity may be difficult to ensure, guidelines recommend removal of all identifying data prior to publication and, where an individual is identifiable, require explicit consent before publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000056-QINU`"' The British Sociological Association in [https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24834/j000208_researching_online_forums_-cs1-_v3.pdf Researching Online Forums] case-study recommends that when collecting data from online forums, all names and any identifying information should be removed, which includes URLs or “links” to forum websites.
Social media data might contain copyrighted material. In such cases researcher should obtain the copyright holder’s consent.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000057-QINU`"' If researcher is planning to publish the materials, they should request consent from all people who appear in photographs, audio or video. Same applies to publication of direct quotes that have not previously been published.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000058-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000059-QINU`"'
Starting in the 18th century, more and more arguments against research with animals have been voiced. Today, guidance for ethical use of animals in research is represented by so called 3R principles. 3R stands for replacement, reduction and refinement.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001C8-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000001C9-QINU`"' Replacement implies that animals as an experimental system should be replaced with a system from which the identical conclusion could be made if it is available. Reduction means that minimal numbers of animals should be used to prove something in experiments. Refinement means that if suffering of animals is present in the experiment it should be refined with pain killing medications and other support measures. In 2013, European Union formally applied EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001CA-QINU`"'This directive refers to 3R principles, and its ultimate goal is to replace animals in research altogether.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001CB-QINU`"'The application of the 3R principles is considered to be of crucial importance for the ethical use of animals in medicine testing across the European Union. Therefore, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with a dedicated 3Rs Working Party (3RsWP) develops scientific guidelines to help medicine developers comply with EU Directive 2010/63/EU. In order to ensure that there are no references to animal tests that are no longer considered appropriate, the EMA reviews and updates EMA guidelines to implement best practice with regard to 3Rs. Additionally, in accordance with Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025, the Agency is promoting 3Rs through a multidisciplinary group - the Innovation Task Force (ITF). This approach is expected to encourage prioritising of alternative methods and facilitate their integration into the development and evaluation of medicinal products. +
