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
[
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`"' +
A healthy lifestyle is crucial since these young people will govern countries, work in vital social areas, and care for others in the future. They must have a strong character and good mental health in order not to burst under the pressures by environment they live in. We are seeing precisely how much health is valued today vs how much we took it for granted prior to the Corona crisis. [https://www.keephealthyliving.com/what-is-the-importance-of-living-a-healthy-lifestyle.html] The role of balanced nutrition in maintaining mental health and cognitive performance remains markedly underrecognised in academic environments, despite being a core component of a healthy lifestyle alongside physical activity. Evidence consistently shows that high-quality dietary patterns are associated with a lower risk of depressive symptoms and better overall psychological functioning, whereas deficiencies in nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, B-group vitamins and vitamin D are linked to fatigue, impaired concentration, low mood and reduced stress resilience. For young researchers, whose work depends on sustained attention, emotional regulation and productivity, neglecting adequate nutrition may therefore contribute to decreased wellbeing, poorer sleep quality and diminished academic performance. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30254236/] +
There is more to imposter syndrome than simply a momentary feeling that we don't fit in. Imposter syndrome is linked to negative long-term mental health consequences, including anxiety, depression, and burnout, according to a number of studies [2, 3]. Particularly graduate students are said to be at risk for poor physical and mental health because of increased academic obligations and performance standards. Studies show a connection between learning results and health, so it is crucial to reduce stress and improve well-being among graduate students [4]. +
The most important characteristic of a dilemma is that either choice is ‘''costly’''. In choosing between unfavourable outcomes, there is no simple solution which prevents a toll to yourself or others. Such a toll can vary substantially, for example between a physical effect (a harm to animals), a negative effect on the environment (radiation exposure) or psychological tensions and moral distress . Being mindful of such dilemmas in daily practice is important, because of the cognitive bias that might develop because of it and reflection brings the opportunity to change a situation.
'''Our own bias'''
Our attitude towards the dilemmas we face can change over time, because of our past decisions ([[Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed|cognitive dissonance theory]] '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"'). Coping strategies such as trivialization, self-affirmation, denial of responsibility and rationalization might further decrease the dissonance in a dilemma. Surprisingly little research has been performed on repetitive exposure'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"'. However, it is not hard to imagine that, over the long run'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000012-QINU`"', scientists feel less distress after repeatedly facing the same dilemma. As such, common dilemmas can result in ‘''common practice''’ where less attention is paid to them.
'''Designing a system which gives rise to fewer dilemmas'''
If such a common practice is actually a questionable research practice or worse, the original dilemma can indicate a deeper or broader problem for science and society. Acknowledging these dilemmas is therefore important, in order to understand where problems stem from. As Nussbaum advocates'"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"', to recognize the real structure of a situation, as ‘''Tragedy is rarely just tragedy''’. The recognition of a dilemma can promote a qualitative analysis. For example, by [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|moral case deliberation]] in which the moral distress of an individual is directly addressed. Or a more technical analyses, for example by taking a ‘''game theory''’ approach'"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"' . In essence, addressing Hegel’s question: ‘''is there a rearrangement of our practices that can remove the tragedy?''’ which might help to find a more beneficial resolution for science as a whole.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000015-QINU`"'
Effective policymaking, built upon sound research, produces outcomes that benefit society, communities, groups and individuals. If research is flawed by lacking integrity and by being conducted unethically it should be of no use to policymakers. Fraud or corrupt practices by researchers can lead to serious damage to society and the physical environment. Reliable and transparent research, divorced from political ideology and undeclared vested interests, produces robust evidence that benefits social wellbeing and societal progress. Ethical values, principles and standards need to be embedded in the ‘culture’ of research and science policy must recognise that need and the most effective way to support it. +
This can create wrong impressions with respect to contributions, intentions, and influences with respect to a contribution. Hence, it can mislead the reader. +
Open peer review is slowly becoming the norm. Nowadays, journals often disclose the names of the reviewers to the authors, and even publish all of the reviewers’ comments if the article is accepted for publication. This kind of practice makes misconduct in peer review much more difficult, since the reviewers’ names are known to more people than just the editor. Also, it is considered that reviewers will be more mindful if their names are known, and leave thoughtful comments and constructive criticism (as they should). Not all research areas are equally open to open peer review, especially to disclosing the reviewer identities to authors.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
The social sciences and humanities are, in part, characterized by significant epistemological and methodological differences both within and between their disciplines '"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"'. As a result, various publication outputs such as books and journal articles require different and multiple evaluation criteria '"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"'. Due to a lack of “a mainstream approach” to the evaluation of research in these disciplines '"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"', multiple and diverse guidelines for peer review exist. Some argue that a holistic approach would introduce biases. Nevertheless, it is argued that there should be “a catalogue of explicit criteria” and “each criterion should be rated separately” '"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'.
Since the traditional peer review system in SSH has been criticized for its risk of bias, delay and unreliability '"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"', some suggest that SSH disciplines would benefit from the appropriation of certain practices already present in STEM disciplines, such as open or post-publication peer review. According to the Publishing Research Consortium, 50-70% of the SSH researchers would support open peer review. However, that support would decrease to 35-55% if open peer review were to include signed reviews published with the associated article '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001A-QINU`"'. When it comes to post-publication review, the majority of SSH researchers are comfortable with it only as an addition to the pre-publication, double-blind review process. Most researchers consider the pre-publication, double-blind review model to be the ideal '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001C-QINU`"' +
Pre-publication peer review is based on the editor’s choice of experts to whom the task of assessing a manuscript will be assigned. In post-publication peer review, the assessment is open to anyone. The exception to this is F1000, where post publication peer review is still by invitation, but still, anyone can comment and add their insights. Some argue that PPPR will help in the correction of literature and renew trust in science. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Others compare it to online comments, and argue that there is no guarantee that the persons commenting will have any expertise. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"' +
