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
[
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`"' +
<span lang="EN-GB">Peer review is essential for ensuring the quality, integrity, and trustworthiness of scholarly publications. While AI could streamline parts of the process (by flagging errors, checking consistency, or summarizing content), it also poses serious risks. AI-generated review comments can be biased, incorrect, or misleading (“hallucinations”), undermining the review’s reliability. Crucially, peer review relies on confidentiality and human judgment. Uploading unpublished manuscripts to public AI systems can breach privacy and confidentiality agreements, a concern so grave that agencies like the NIH and the American Chemical Society explicitly forbid it. In response, leading institutions have imposed restrictions: for example, the NIH and Australian Research Council now prohibit reviewers from using generative AI in grant reviews, and many journals have introduced policies banning or limiting AI in peer review. These measures underline that the responsible use of AI is crucial to maintain trust and fairness in the peer review system.</span> +
AI generated content presents important questions for conceptions of integrity in research and authorship, because they create a grey area when deciding attribution. AI tools like Chat GPT are already capable of producing student essays that are indistinguishable from those written by students, and these developments have led to calls for a reevaluation of the role of writing in assessment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' These tools are also being used by researchers in the production of research, and have been credited with formal authorship in several articles.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' Policy-makers have already sought expert advice on how science should accommodate these changes. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'
This is a developing issue, and raises questions about attribution and authorship for which there are not yet clear answers. ''Nature'' recently issued a new policy about the ethical use of LLM tools like Chat GPT, arguing that these tools will not be credited with authorship on future research papers as they cannot take accountability for the research that they produce. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' This is just one policy though, and there are not yet clear guidelines on what the best practices are for research produced using these tools. The Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission have highlighted the ability of AI tools to generate and spread fraudulent content at scale as posing a significant risk to scientific communication, and have emphasised the need for greater AI literacy and competency in researchers to deal with these challenges.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'
The use of these tools also raise further questions about the notion of plagiarism. For example, an LLM might be used to produce an outline for the structure rather than the content of an article. If a researcher then makes use of this structure without admitting to having used an LLM, would that constitute plagiarism? And if the answer to this question is yes, then how should we accommodate the fact that many researchers effectively do the same thing - using existing research produced by others as structural inspiration for their own work - without attribution? These are questions for which we do not yet have clear answers with widespread agreement.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"'
<span lang="EN-GB">AI use is becoming part of many processes, as well as improving the writing of scientific publications. AI tools can be used for basic technical assistance, linguistic enhancement, substantial content involvement, or even extensive content creation</span> (2)<span lang="EN-GB">. However, a good scientific practice includes accountability, objectivity, reproducibility, transparency, integrity, honesty</span> (3)<span lang="EN-GB">.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">The research should be original, even though some AI tool is utilised. It seems that the scientific journals have their own policies on AI-generated content, and the authors are recommended to review those before attempting to use AI for their manuscript. The level of AI use should be thought through by the authors, and when utilised, the ethical rigor warrants acknowledgment of such an action in the manuscript</span> (4)<span lang="EN-GB">. Nondisclosure of AI use can be classified as misconduct in some circumstances</span> (5)<span lang="EN-GB">.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Another issue is confidentiality, as some AI tools do not ensure that the content will not be taken up</span> (5)<span lang="EN-GB">.</span> +
When considering any research project, the potential net benefit should outweigh the potential net harm. This is in line with the universally recognized ethical principles of beneficence (doing good) and non-maleficence (not doing harm). These two principles stem from the belief that human beings have inherent dignity, which was formalized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' In biomedical research, harms will almost inevitably be experienced alongside benefits. That’s why it’s important to carefully assess how important the benefits are and under what cost. These dilemmas should always be communicated to research participants, to ensure fully informed consent.
A number of mid-20th century studies, such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, were conducted to examine the natural history of a disease by either deliberately exposing human subjects to damaging stimuli, or by not giving them effective treatment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' These are some of the most prominent examples of disproportionate harm to benefit.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
This is important as a small participant sample may result in delayed publication of the research, an increase in research costs, and sampling bias (Williams et al., 2007). +
Research in disciplines such as history, political science, sociology or anthropology requires fieldwork in different sites. This can be very challenging, so researchers need to be aware of specific conditions of these sites.
Sometimes research is conducted in areas where political and societal conditions pose serious risks regarding safety of researchers and other participants. Fieldwork in an EU country, certain Middle Eastern zones or some parts of Central Asia are not the same. Apart from conflict zones or countries with non-democratic regimes, countries or regions where economic, environmental and health conditions may put at risk researchers and research participants fit into this category as well.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Conditions that can present danger for researchers can be found in stable and developed countries as well, for example when researching criminal activities and conducting research in troubled neighborhoods.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
Fieldwork in conflict zones and countries with authoritarian regimes poses high risks and presents practical and ethical difficulties, from getting research permits, possible language barriers,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' gathering the accurate data due to lack of unbiased sources'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' to obtaining informed consent.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Therefore, conducting research in these sites requires more attention from researchers, academic institutions and regulatory bodies to ensure the safety of researchers and all research participants.
Sites of research can be challenging in different ways. When conducting a research, for example, in indigenous communities such as Native American communities, researchers have to be aware of and show respect to their cultural framework. It requires knowledge of this culture and establishing relationships with members of their community to build trust which would facilitate achieving the aim of the research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"'
Confidentiality is deemed important as it is based on a prima facie duty of a researcher to not reveal given information by a research subject or patient. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' It is based on an implicit or explicit agreement to safeguard confidential or secret information. The relationship between the subject (research participant, patient or other individual) and the other party (researcher, medical professional) is based on trust. Confidentiality is more specific than privacy and is given more importance. Where privacy can be breached to avoid harm, the implicit or explicit agreement between two parties concerning confidentiality are deemed more important and should not be infringed upon. The most important example is the patient-physician privilege. This special relationship between a health professional and their patients dates back to the Hippocratic oath, who as far as is known, first stated that personal information should be safeguarded.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
Forensic anthropologists need to adapt to the different socio-cultural aspects of dealing with death, the deceased, and human remains in various populations.
The leading questions to be answered:
· Is it necessary to have a defined code of practice or personal best practice is something to follow in everyday work?
· How many details are considered enough in writing the final report?
· Archaeological cases vs. forensic cases: obligation to further analysis even though the forensic significance of the case is missing?
· Are human remains still a person or evidence'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'?
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
Ethical principles should guide research to address initial and ongoing issues arising from qualitative research to achieve research objectives and protect the rights of research participants. +
Involving children with disabilities in research involves significantly more issues and dilemmas than when it comes to children in general. People with disabilities and especially children with disabilities have always been vulnerable group of people whose needs are often overlooked and expectations for them are put as low as possible. All this also transfers to research. Children with disabilities are sometimes deliberately or accidentally left out of research. Processes of information giving, consent or assent, and methodologies for data collection may be insufficiently adapted to be seen as truly disability inclusive. Also, researchers often come with wrong assumption about capabilities of children with disabilities to participate in research and value of their inclusion in research is not well understood. +
Prominent examples of incidental research findings include the discovery of penicillin, X-rays, radioactivity and microwaves. These findings have provided significant benefits for society. Swift technological developments, large amounts of data and the constant drive to innovate increase the chances of uncovering new and important incidental findings in the future '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'.
In some disciplines, these findings raise ethical and legal questions and can lead to serious dilemmas for human research. For example, in the social sciences and the humanities, confidentiality obligations to human participants can clash with obligations to disclose information to relevant authorities '"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'. These findings could relate to criminal activities, human trafficking, abuse, domestic violence and bullying. 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 Science and Humanities”] from 2018 states that if such findings are revealed during the research, then researchers must report them to the relevant authorities, regardless of their prior commitments to confidentiality and the preservation of the anonymity of the participants'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' .
Incidental findings in biomedicine can include medical abnormalities that could have serious clinical significance '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"'. For example, research can reveal a brain tumor '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"', and identifying it on time can save a life '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'. Some recent studies in neurology have revealed a great number of incidental findings. For example, one study revealed incidental findings in 47 % of the MRI and fMRI scans of adult volunteers (n=151), 6.6 % of which required a follow-up. Furthermore, 9.8 % of the total findings required a routine referral and 4 % an urgent referral '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"'
In order to conduct clinical research in an ethical manner, informed assent from children and informed consent from their legal guardians must be sought. Respecting both children’s wishes and asking parents’ permission is necessary in order to respect laws and rules of good clinical practice, and to respect patients’ autonomy, despite the fact that the patient is a minor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
