Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
[
Not storing data properly and disregarding safeguards can lead to losing important research data. This does not occur rarely. A study carried out on 516 articles published from 1991 to 2011 has revealed that availability of research data in biology decreases about 17% per year.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Various reasons can lead to unavailability of research data, whether researchers change their contact information and are not reachable anymore or they use outdated technology, such as floppy disks, to store their data.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Apart from that, even when researchers are able to access their data, they often lose hours and hours searching for them in their computer files.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Therefore, depositing data into repositories can save a considerable amount of time. There are several benefits for researchers who deposit their data into repositories:
-data is clustered together which enables easier and faster analysis and reporting
-potential problems are detected easier because repositories are categorised
-data is preserved and archived.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"'
Overall, such practice promotes transparency in research and reduce misconduct.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' However, data repositories also have some downsides. For example, there is a possibility of a system crash that could affect the stored data, so it is important always to back up datasets.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
The integration of AI in research offers game-changing opportunities, such as accelerating discoveries, enhancing reproducibility, and processing huge datasets. However, it also brings significant ethical dilemmas. AI systems can be biased due to the data they are trained on, leading to skewed results. Misuse of AI, such as automated paper generation or data fabrication, undermines the integrity of scientific work. Additionally, tools like ChatGPT can generate text that blurs the line between legitimate use and misconduct, raising questions about plagiarism, authorship, and attribution.
Another critical concern is data privacy: the use of personal or sensitive data to train AI models can compromise participant confidentiality if not handled with care. Researchers may also face difficulties in understanding or explaining how AI models generate conclusions, which challenges transparency, accountability, and trust in scientific findings.
This topic is crucial as it emphasizes the need for responsible AI use that upholds ethical principles like honesty, fairness, and respect for participants and society. It encourages dialogue on setting guidelines for AI use in research to ensure that technological advancements do not compromise trust in science. +
Paper mills pose significant threats to the integrity and trustworthiness of academic research, and to the scholarly record. The possibility that hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘fake’ papers are published in academic journals seriously compromises the trust that scholars and the public have in published research. Paper mills also contribute to resource waste, as the investigation and retraction of fake papers is a costly and time consuming process for publishers. Moreover, more money could be wasted if fake papers are used to obtain funding for further research, and in the case of clinical research the health of patients may be put at risk.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"'
Paper mills present a growing problem for the scientific community, with one estimate in 2022 suggesting that 2% of paper submissions across all scientific journals are likely to come from paper mills;in some subject areas, this figure is likely to be much higher .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"' Estimates made using the Paper Mill Alarm indicate that the number of articles bearing a close textual similarity to paper mill products have been steadily rising since 2000.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"' There is also concern that the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools will exacerbate this problem, by providing paper mills with the ability to generate new papers and avoid detection techniques at greater speed.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'
Paper mills can thrive because of the pressure for researchers to publish in order to advance their careers. Publication may be necessary to obtain their doctorate for example, or to be considered eligible for a promotion by their institution. For example, the Beijing municipal health authority had a policy in place as recently as 2021 requiring attending physicians in non-research roles to meet a minimum number of first-author publications in professional journals in order to gain promotion.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"' In other cases, researchers may make use of paper mills to boost their chances of obtaining research funding when applying for a grant.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001A-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001B-QINU`"'
By not declaring COIs, reviewers undermine the transparancy and honesty of the application process. The role of reviewers and the process of reviewing grant applications differs greatly among RFOs. However, many RFOs stipulate the role of reviewers for internal (staff) members, invited external reviewers and appointed committee members. In all instances having a COI when reviewing a grant proposal needs to be declared +
Collaborations are essential to scientific progress, but should not undermine the independence of research. The Wellcome Trust, a UK based funder, does not for example fund any researchers that receive funding from the tobacco industry. They state “There is overwhelming evidence that tobacco damages the health of smokers and non-smoker” .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'The goals of industry (maximizing profit) and researchers (furthering knowledge) are often not aligned.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"' There are a number of examples where the industry clearly interfered with scientific research to promote their own products. Industry stakeholders are known to have sponsered research to supress evidence showing the adverse effects of their products. For example, the tobacco industry funded research to show that second hand smoking was not harmful. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001A-QINU`"' The sugar industry funded research to show the harmful effect of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol were more harmful than sugar intake for causing coronary heart disease.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"' These are clear cases of intereference. There are also other ways in which industry sponsors affect research. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that industry sponsored research has more favourable outcomes than non-industry sponsored research. This is also called the funding effect. However, some systematic reviews have also shown that there is little or no difference between industry sponsors and study outcomes.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"' Per discipline and type of research the “funder effect” may differ.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001D-QINU`"' +
Continuing education is essential for physicians navigating rapidly evolving medical knowledge, new therapies, and emerging technologies. However, high-quality CME is expensive, and many educational providers rely on pharmaceutical and device‑industry funding to sustain programs. This creates a structural tension: industry support can enhance educational reach, but it also risks shaping content, speaker selection, or topic emphasis in ways that align with commercial interests. (1) +
IP rights allow individuals or organizations to earn recognition or to benefit financially from their inventions.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' In addition, IP rights stimulate creativity and let innovations flourish.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Before the start of a research project, all stakeholders should make an agreement concerning ownership of IP rights. Research funding organizations and private companies are important stakeholders, when it comes to research that may result in development of intellectual property.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
RFOs want to ensure that the research projects they fund have a positive societal impact. In the most severe cases, research monitoring can result in the termination of project funding. Funders can monitor the allocation of finances, the quality of research, adherence to the research proposal, and whether laws, regulatory frameworks and contracts are upheld.
After the conclusion of a research project, a funder can have a follow-up period to assess the real-time impact of the research. In addition, RFO’s can perform regular Standard Evaluation Protocols (SEP’s). For example, in the Netherlands, all institutions receiving public funding are subject to a SEP every 6 years.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'
When a researcher wants to diverge from the research proposal, approval from the RFO needs to be sought. This often involves providing an explanation as to why the researcher wants to change the methodology.
According to research misconduct guidelines from the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), when an allegation of misconduct is made to the organization performing the research, the RFO must be informed.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' Both the confidentiality of the whisteblower and the accused needs to be guaranteed when informing the RFO. In addition, allegations of research misconduct can be presented directly to the funding organization. RFOs should have guidelines in place to deal with allegations of misconduct involving their funded projects. In most instances, the funding organization will inform the research performing organization about the allegation, and the appropriate procedures will be started by the RPO (also see research misconduct). However, the person making the allegation may fear repercussions, and may wish to remain anonymous. The Wellcome Trust, a UK-based funding agency, states the following:'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'
“If an informant wishes to remain anonymous, this will be respected unless:
*there are overriding legal requirements that we reveal the identity of the informant
*it is impossible to maintain anonymity to conduct an investigation
*the informant subsequently agrees to relinquish anonymity.
The informant will be notified of any proposed change to their anonymity”
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"'
Communication and leadership are crucial to managing a research laboratory ethically. +
When drug and device studies are conducted, results that are unfavorable to the sponsor can pose great financial risks to the sponsor companies. Several factors can explain the relationship between sponsorship and favorable outcomes, including a variety of biasing choices in the design, conduct, and reporting of studies.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' Inferior competing treatment alternatives may be chosen as well as less clinically relevant primary outcomes that have a better chance of achieving a significant effect. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' Of course, there is also another perspective, meaning that the observed success rates seen in industry-sponsored trials are also rooted in the way commercial sponsors invest in product development meaning that only proposals with promising data and a high likelihood of success progress to RCT testing.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"'
The higher success rates seen in industry-sponsored research are expected and can be explained by extensive research, development efforts, and multimillion dollars investments.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"'
<span lang="HR"></span>
'"`UNIQ--references-00000011-QINU`"' +
Obtaining consent and assent is vital for several reasons:
*'''Ethical Obligations''': Protecting the welfare and rights of child participants is a fundamental ethical requirement in research.
*'''Vulnerability''': Children are considered a vulnerable population, and specific safeguards must be in place to protect them from potential harm or exploitation.
*'''Trust''': Transparent communication and ethical practices foster trust between researchers, participants, and families, which is crucial for successful research outcomes.
*'''Compliance''': Adhering to ethical guidelines and legal requirements helps researchers avoid legal repercussions and enhances the credibility of their research. +
This theme is important because it affects many researchers in their work. It is essential to collect transparent and accurate consent from all participants who are eligible to be in research. +
Initiatives for the promotion of research integrity have a number of aims. First, to help train and educate young researchers and students in how to adhere to ethical research practices so that they can contribute to an honest and open research culture. But initiatives are not only focused on young researchers, they are also valuable for senior researchers when it comes to supervising or teaching research integrity. Initiatives help researchers recognize bad research practices, but they also help institutions in guidance when dealing with cases of misconduct. Their impact and development are not limited to research performing organizations only. Some journals and funders have recognized the importance of building a research integrity culture and starting initiatives for research integrity promotion. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
The scenarios are ''educational'' in three ways:
#In terms of their content, the scenarios develop upon and extend educational resources in research ethics and research integrity in order to allow users to gain knowledge of, and reflectively apply, [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice;#In terms of their structure, they take the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide user deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative;#Users have the opportunity to employ the scenarios as learning instruments in a classroom setting.
The scenarios ''stimulate thinking'' by providing questions concerning the good and bad aspects of the research practices invoked by the hypothetical narratives. It is envisaged that the type of reflection employed will be ''strategic'' because, in order to answer the questions and thereby gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices, the user is required to understand and apply the content of the ECCRI to different research activities and contexts in combination with their local regulatory documents pertaining to research integrity and research ethics. +
It is important that staff and students have the opportunity to discuss integrity related concerns in an accessible way. By making it easier to find and consult an advisor, institutions make an effort to decrease the barriers for people to discuss their worries or questions. This will benefit the research culture. +
It connects people from within the field of research integrity, since the backgrounds of researchers in this field are diverse and they will not meet each other in discipline specific conferences. Additionally, the field of research integrity is still young, and it’s important to connect and share ideas. Moreover, it provides the possibility to learn from each other and help one another. +
As researchers, we often face RI dilemmas. For example, a dilemma about the inclusion of an extra author in a publication. Most of the time, dilemmas are implicitly or explicitly related to relational aspects (e.g. collaboration with a supervisor or boss). Although guidelines and codes of conduct provide us with guidance on how to act, often we face difficult situations in which contrasting values are at stake. While developing RI training, it is important to reflect on researchers’ day-to-day dilemmas in addition to theoretical knowledge of RI issues (e.g. codes of conduct, best practices, and regulations). This, however, can be challenging. It entails building a bridge between theory and practice, and reflecting on how to act in situations of ethical uncertainty. +
Research is an expensive endeavor in terms of finances, time, human, and other resources. Therefore, if the results of research do not serve those who would use it, it becomes waste. Research can be wasted in several ways. First, if the potential results of research will not be of benefit to anybody. Second, if the research design is flawed. Third, if the management and execution of research is inadequate. Fourth, if research information is inaccessible. Finally, if the benefit of the research published is undermined by not publishing or partially publishing research reports. +
Secondary corrections are important because even though the article is retracted, information from that piece of research will persist in science, if it is not corrected in the articles that have cited it. Secondary corrections are not common, especially in cases of older articles that have been retracted and authors who have cited it do not re-check their article anymore. Also, the author has to correct the article, which could affect his reputation, even though they are not directly responsible for the need for the correction. Unfortunately, for now, all the corrections fall in the same group, regardless of the causality, so a secondary correction is treated as any other correction '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'. Secondary corrections should be considered as examples of good practice, because they show that an author follows their field of research and is conscientious in their work.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
The assessment of researchers is considered important for research integrity practices. However, the current research metrics, assessment and reward system includes perverse incentives .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' This incentivizes researchers to cut corners to receive positive assessments, for instance for grants and promotions. The HKPs address the issue by outlining concrete proposals to make the assessment more comprehensive and more balanced. The HKPs have the aim to acknowledge and reward responsible research practices that make research trustworthy. Implementation of the five principles will increase research integrity and remove perverse incentives.
'''<big>The five principles</big>'''
# Assess researchers on responsible practices from conception to delivery including the development of research ideas, research design, methodology, execution and effective dissemination.
# Value the accurate and transparent reporting of all research, regardless of the results.
# Value the practices of open science (open research) – such as open methods, materials and data.
# Value a broad range of research and scholarship, such as replication, innovation, translation, synthesis, and meta-research.
# Value a range of other contributions to responsible research and scholarly activity, such as peer review for grants and publications, mentoring, outreach, and knowledge exchange.
'''<big>Endorsement</big>'''
Research institutions, funders, journals, other research organizations and individual researchers can endorse the principles on the website of the WCRI foundation [https://wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles here.]
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
