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
[
<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 Uploading unpublished manuscripts to public AI systems can breach privacy and confidentiality agreements, a concern so grave that agencies like the NIH and the American Chemical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`"' +
In order to maintain high standards of research ethics, personal dignity and autonomy must be respected. To achieve this, before conducting research, researchers have to seek informed consent from participants. +
Internet can be used as a research tool to collect data (“non-intrusive analysis”) and as a venue when it engages the participants of the web source, i.e. human subjects (“engaged analysis”).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' However, this distinction can be blurred when it comes to social media, for example Facebook or Twitter where “participant recruitment”, data collection, analysis and dissemination can occur in the same space.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Regardless of whether we use Internet as a tool or a venue, it is important to distinguish public and private data.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'
Dealing with private data and human subjects in research poses challenges related to privacy, anonymity and informed consent.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' Although it is not always clear whether online venues are public or private, some pointers might help to distinguish them. E-mail lists and closed online debates can be considered private because they are property of the community that created them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Some online settings determine for themselves whether their postings are public or private. For instance, a private and password-secured Facebook group can be considered private, while an open discussion on Twitter where users post their opinions on certain topics can be considered public.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'
Confirming the identity of participants of online sites can be challenging as well. People might use an avatar or adopt a username to participate in an online discussion, which makes difficult or impossible to contact them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' Participants can even fabricate their identity. Students might have a parent or another student providing them with answers during an online test or a survey.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' One of the extreme cases is that of American blogger Debbie Swenson who pretended to be a teenager “Kaycee Nicole”, a fictitious online persona suffering from terminal leukemia. Swenson blogged about her condition and convinced the readers of her own death.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"'
Privacy is important because it is considered a human right. All persons have the right to a private life, which is based on the idea that individual welfare is promoted. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Individuals can do as they please, as long as others are not harmed in any way. If the harm outweighs the right to privacy, society can intervence. Privacy mainly concerns the protection of personal data. In a research setting, any information, such as names, addresses and other personal data, will usually be encrypted so that other research data cannot be traced back to an indvidual. However, with the rise of biobanks, privacy of (research) participants may be jeapordized. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' As the main purpose of biobanks is to collect tissue and DNA, this cannot be encrypted. DNA is unique to every person, and can thus be traced back to an indivual. Dealing with this is an important challenge in biobanking research.
Correspondingly, there are challenges in health data research'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' as well as artificial intelligence'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' and big data research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"' +
Use of animals in research has a long tradition and has been the subject of various debates. From ancient Greece, to physiological research of the 17th century and drug testing today, animals were used in place of human models to gain insight and improve knowledge. It is considered that animal research has contributed to about 70% of Nobel prizes in Medicine or Physiology. Various vaccines, antibiotics, insulin and organ transplants have been developed with help of animal research. In development and testing of new drugs, animal testing is still obligatory. New methods, such as computer simulations, models and cell and tissue cultures, have been used to replace animal research, but in some areas there is still no replacement of equal value. +
Research involving children is challenging for several reasons.
First, the close relationship between the researcher and the child. Children are potentially more vulnerable to unequal power relations with an adult researcher than other groups, and perhaps some children are not accustomed to adults who are interested in their views.
Second, elements of informed consent need to be explained in a child-friendly way. Children must be given sufficient information in a language they understand to enable them to make an informed decision to participate.
Third, protection of the identity of the research participants is very important so that the information collected will not harm them.
Fourth, can participation lead to a better awareness and understanding of one's health problem and ultimately to a better regulation of the underlying disease for a child? +
New drugs. procedures and treatments require detailed testing to ensure they are safe, effective and do not harm those undergoing the treatment or taking the drug. While a lot can be answered using in vitro experiments and animal testing, testing on humans is necessary in order to verify the safety and efficacy of novel treatments.'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Throughout history, scientific experiments have been conducted on human beings without their consent, especially during the World War II. As a result, specific ethical guidelines for human experimentation were developed. One of the ethical milestones in clinical research is informed consent, a process in which researchers ask for a permission before enrolling participants in a trial.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'The decision to participate has to be freely given, without pressure or conflicting interests, and based on appropriate information. Prisoners, soldiers, migrants, and other vulnerable groups are often unable to give consent in a way that satisfies the appropriate voluntary conditions. Children and patients with severe psychiatric conditions or dementia do not have the required legal capacity for granting consent.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
<span lang="EN-GB">Authorship is a fundamental aspect of academic integrity, ensuring accountability, credibility, and proper attribution of contributions. Anonymity can complicate the verification and review process, making it harder to assess the quality and reliability of research. Additionally, journals and funding bodies require clear authorship attribution to uphold research integrity. However, in cases where anonymity is warranted, ethical guidelines must be carefully considered (2). Balancing the need for transparency with the potential risks of exposure is a challenge that institutions, researchers, and publishers must navigate.</span> +
