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
[
Getting authorship credit in academia is important because it’s one of the main ways how other researchers and institutions evaluate your work. Among other criteria, institutions seek employees based on the number of articles published, and authorship is a criterion for getting promotion or tenure. In the end, authors are researchers who guarantee for the data in the article, and can be held responsible for their work. In medical sciences, practice of ghost-writing can happen during the clinical trials, where experts from drug companies (writers or statisticians) contribute to the research or manuscript writing, but are not listed as authors because of their conflict of interest. Sometimes, senior researchers, supervisors and laboratory leaders, who do not fulfil the authorship criteria end up listed as authors. That is called guest or gift authorship and is usually done to increase the chance of manuscript publication. +
When someone does not fit into one the [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html four criteria] for authors identified by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), they should not be listed as authors, but acknowledged as contributors. With regard to that, they should meet one of the following criteria:
-provide funding
-supervise a research group or provide general administrative support
-assist authors in writing, technical and language editing, and proofreading.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'
Contributors may be acknowledged individually or as a group, and their contributions should be specified (reviewing the manuscript, collecting data, participation in writing or technical editing of the manuscript, etc.).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Authors must obtain permission from contributors to acknowledge them in their papers.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000C-QINU`"' +
Much of scientific work happens through collaboration. But collaboration can also lead to conflict when the roles of different collaborators are unclear or when expectations are not met. Laying clear ground rules and having an open discussion about expectations helps the collaboration run smoothly. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
Collaboration promotes ''the building of effective communication and partnerships, and also provides equal opportunity among team members.'' It honors and respects each member's individual and organizational style. Collaboration also promotes ethical behavior by maintaining '''honesty, integrity, equity, transparency and confidentiality.''' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
Self-plagiarism is an issue because it means already published data is presented as new, which can distort meta-analyses and impact review articles. Not only that, duplicate publishing can have serious effects on algorithms and guidelines in healthcare. Self-plagiarism gives false results in citation index tools. It’s unfair and at its core, it’s basically double dipping - for one piece of work you get multiple publications. Another problem is the copyright issue. When you publish your work, you usually sign a contract with the journal, by which you transfer copyright rights to the publisher. That way, when you copy your own work, you are stealing not only from yourself, but from the publisher as well, and actually breaking the law. +
In practice, although each member is wholly responsible for the integrity of their contribution, it could be difficult for an individual or a team to ensure the integrity of the whole project. This is especially true in collaborative projects involving several disciplines, institutions or cross-border initiatives. In the case of authorship, for instance, it can be ethically complex to attribute accountability in large, multidisciplinary projects. <sup>2</sup> In such situations, transparency as to the role of each contributing member or team becomes crucial. Practices such as assigning Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) are a way of recognizing and clarifying the roles of contributors. <sup>3</sup> +
Research aims for ‘truth’. We trust researchers to strive for that. Errors in research – whether intentional or not – hamper truth finding. When errors (honest mistakes or deliberate violations) are dealt with, we come closer to finding scientific ‘truth’, such as a theory that explains what we see around us or the best treatment for a particular condition. Addressing errors restores trust in research. When someone knows a mistake is made and does not act upon that, truth is compromised and trust in research decreases. +
Reviewing is part of the scientific process of ensuring trustworthiness and accountability. Reviewers are in a position to exert power over manuscripts, grant proposals or promotions of others. With an unfavourable review, a manuscript might not be published, a grant not funded, or a promotion not awarded. In relation to grant applications, there are instances where reviewers have provided a negative review to a proposal, then subsequently submitted a similar proposal (for a case study from The Office of Research Integrity , see [https://ori.hhs.gov/case-three-getting-scooped-reviewer here]). Moreover, within peer review there are cases of bullying and using superiority to add, for example, the articles of the reviewers (e.g. see [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00335-7 here]). Reviewers might also be motivated to provide an unfavourable review because they are working on the same topic and want to publish their results first. When it comes to promotion of colleagues, a reviewer might abuse their position by unfairly reviewing one candidate, because they have a preference for another candidate. +
Convenience sampling is widely used because it is quick, inexpensive, and practical, especially in early‑stage or resource‑limited studies. However, its ethical implications are often underexamined. Evidence shows that convenience samples frequently fail to represent target populations, undermining the external validity of research findings and limiting their generalizability (2). This poses a significant ethical issue because participants may shoulder burdens without the guarantee that the generated knowledge will meaningfully benefit the intended population.
Ethical frameworks emphasize fair subject selection, insisting that scientific objectives, rather than convenience, should determine who is included in research . Yet convenience sampling often disproportionately recruits easily reachable groups such as students, patient populations already visiting clinics, or individuals with higher socioeconomic resources, creating inequities in both risks and benefits. Studies have documented that convenience samples differ systematically from broader populations in education, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (3), meaning that marginalized groups may be under‑ or over‑represented in ways that distort findings.
Because convenience sampling impacts validity, fairness, and the equitable distribution of research burdens, understanding its ethical dimensions is crucial for responsible scientific practice.
This topic is especially relevant for early‑career researchers, master’s and PhD students, supervisors, ethics committee members, and practitioners conducting human‑subject research across social sciences, health sciences, and psychology. +
Data are both factual information (e.g. statistical information, cell counts) and materials, means and products of scientific inquiry (e.g. tissue samples, written notes).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Handling data refers to how data are “maintained, analysed, interpreted, and shared, transmitted or reported to others.” (pg. 95).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' When talking about handling data, The Office for Research Integrity (ORI) states that the following needs to be considered'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"':
· ''Data storage'' refers to how the data should be stored in such a way in order for (project) results can be reconstructed (by others).
· ''Data protection'' concerns the protection of written and electronic data and research materials from possible physical and electronic damage and from theft or tampering.
· ''Data retention'' refers to the length of time data needs to be stored after the end of a project. Per country, institution and funder this differs. Secure destruction of data also needs to be guaranteed.
· ''Data sharing'' is the act of sharing research results with other researchers and the public. How and if results should be shared is an important point to consider here.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Researchers have a responsibility to keep notes, or up-to-date laboratory journals, of their research process. Between different disciplines, the content and structure of notes may differ. In addition, new ideas should be written down as comprehensively as possible and dated. This ensures researchers are given appropriate credit within a research team for generating ideas. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Whether you carry out research in an academic setting or in the field, there is a variety of safety risks that could affect researchers and research participants. Depending on research areas, different kinds of safety risks may occur, ranging from physical (experiencing pain or other side effects from medication) to psychological harm (stress).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Furthermore, faculties at academic sites, such as chemical and microbiological laboratories, may pose hazardous risks.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' Potential risks that can occur in social research are related to data or perspectives that impact on feelings, values and viewpoints of people involved in research.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"' Fieldwork particularly poses some risks, for example conducting interviews in high-risk locations, such as in war zones or in countries with authoritarian regimes.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' Not considering safety risks in research can result in tragic events including death.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"' +
Addressing any question in empirical sciences implies that there will be some kind of study, which needs to be designed in such fashion that it answers the question in the most unambiguous way. Scientific questions can usually fall into one of these categories: identification of influencing factors (etiology and risk factors), predicting power of those factors (prognosis and prediction), effects of interventions into those factors. To answer these questions, factors that are measured or manipulated must correspond to questions that are asked. Meaning, your outcome measure has to be relevant for your question. Preferably, it should answer your question directly. The design of your study also has to fit the outcome measure. Furthermore, if there are some factors that we are unaware of or others that are known to us but we cannot measure them, then we have to use randomization to reduce their possible influence on things that we want to measure. If you do not address things that are listed above when planning research, you can simply get wrong answers to your questions . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
Not disclosing changes creates a biased view of the research performed. Some of the changes that researchers perform after the first analyses include P-hacking, HARK-ing, cherry picking results, or performing explorative subgroup analyses. In qualitative research the methods can also be changed, for instance, changing the research question after data collection.
<br /> +
Within the scientific community, posing irrelevant research questions is considered a problem because it leads to research waste. Funding in the scientific community is limited, and research waste uses valuable resources which could have been used elsewhere. Science, fundamentally, involves posing questions and forming hypotheses that might turn out to be wrong, but the questions asked should always be relevant. Within health research it is estimated 50% of questions are not relevant .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' These include:
#Questions that have low priority of being researched. Assessing the risk of getting malaria is a relevant question in sub-Saharan Africa – but not when asking the same question in Northern Siberia – where the mosquito does not live.
#Questions which ignore the outcome of previous research, which results in duplicate research and wastes valuable resources. This is not the same as explicit replication of previous research, which is vital for the trustworthiness of science.
#Questions which do not involve those affected by the research in setting the research agenda. For example, most research on rheumatoid arthritis focused on pain relief. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' However, a novel study found that fatigue was one of most prevalent, and ignored, problems among patients .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' This shows that asking the right question is also concerned with societal relevance, and interacting with patients and clinicians is of great importance.
Formulating relevant research questions is not easy, and is a challenge for individual researchers and the scientific community as a whole.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000F-QINU`"' +
It is important that scientists are incentivized to do good science and be good scientists. This means that, as much as possible, good science should be rewarded. If not, then it may not be realistic to expect a culture that fosters research integrity, nor to expect a lasting solution to problems of reproducibility. Moreover, should institutions and journals keep perverse incentives in place, it may not be fair to individual scientists to hold them only responsible for undesirable scientific outcomes. +
Polarized research is a type of bias that with basis in (covert) conflict of interest. Therefore it may misguide or distort the production of knowledge. Being aware of polarized research is tremendously important for readers of scientific papers, for researchers, for editors, for information specialists (synthesizing knowledge), and for users of scientific evidence, such as policy makers.
Results on climate change have, for example, been polarized. Moreover, there are many examples from health care, where studies of effects of various procedures vary greatly – even when based on the same data. One of the most familiar cases from health care involves studies on [https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0243-z mammography screening] of women for breast cancer, where results on breast cancer mortality reduction and overdiagnosis vary greatly.
While professional disagreement is what drives scientific progress, polarized research hampers it, as it frequently becomes static and entrenched. Or it can be related to "choice-supportive bias." It is an interesting issue whether polarized research borders on misconduct, as it involves strong and often covert conflict of interest. However, the interest is not directly related to money or profit. Alternatively, scientific conferences and consensus conferences can be one constructive manner to address the problem. +
The pay to publish model has introduced a perverse conflict of interest into academic publishing. Rejecting papers does not yield any income and conflicts with the publisher’s financial interest. Because predatory journals do not usually apply rigorous peer review, the average quality of the published research is lower than that of adequately peer reviewed papers.
Avoiding, bypassing, or diminishing the quality assurance step of peer review can result in poor knowledge production. This results in bad research being freely accessible to the public, which is harmful to those who read it, corrupts the record of published scientific results, undermines evidence-based practice, misguides decision and policy makers, and risks erosion of public trust in academic science.
A number of studies have exposed predatory journal practices. For example, a writer for the journal Science submitted a very flawed manuscript to a number of open-access journals and experienced that 57% of the journals accepted the paper. He then published his results in a paper called, "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' A fictitious scientist named Anna O. Szust applied for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals without relevant qualifications and with a made-up CV. 40 of 120 predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background check and often very quickly. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'
Researchers, particularly those with less experience, are sometimes unaware of the predatory nature of a journal and can be tricked into submitting a manuscript. Publishing in a predatory journal means that the article is no longer original and cannot be published in a high quality, peer-reviewed journal. Another problem is, when a researcher learns of the predatory nature of the journal and requests a retraction, the journal will often either refuse to retract the article, or request another fee to take it down. To avoid reputational damage and wasting a good article in a worthless publication, it is important to be able to recognize and avoid predatory journals.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000C-QINU`"'
QRPs are actions that concern trespassing "methodological principles that threathen the relevance, valdity, trustworthiness, or efficiency of the study at issue".'"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"' QRPs can be divided over four main areas of the research process: the study design, data collection, reporting and collaboration. QRPs are estimated to occur far more frequently then serious misconduct, and therefore pose a threat to trust and truth in science. Under the current system QRPs are rewarded in the form of a higher number and more prestigious publications. Indeed, sloppy science as described above appears to have a strong 'fitness to survive'. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001A-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001B-QINU`"' +
Data fabrication is a form of research misconduct that affects the credibility of research and decreases public trust in science. In addition, the misrepresentation of data in biomedical research can be a serious threat to public health and safety '"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"'. Furthermore, because biomedical research is largely funded by the public – the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services invests more than $32 billion a year to improve public health '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001A-QINU`"' – data fabrication can lead to the loss of public funds.
When there is a suspicion of research misconduct, an investigation is conducted by the Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO) within the U.S.’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI) '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"'. In recent years, numerous scientific papers have been retracted and about two-thirds of them were due to scientific misconduct '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"'. While the ORI and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services support and encourage the use of methods for detecting image manipulation, some argue that statistical methods, which can detect numerical data fabrication, “get much less attention,” even though this form of fabrication occurs regularly '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001E-QINU`"' +
Preregistration prevents several biases often occurring in preclinical experiments and promote responsible & robust animal research. By reducing these biases, researchers increase the value and reliability of their studies and contribute to better science.
*The overview created by preregistration enables to '''counter publication bias''' by making these studies available regardless of their results.
*Preregistration enables to compare final publications and (pre)registered protocols, which '''increase transparency''' and '''reduce reporting bias''', such as <u>selective outcomes reporting</u>.
*By stating in advance hypotheses and statistical plans, preregistration '''reduces misconducts''' like <u>HARKing</u> (Hypothesis After Results are Known) and <u>p-hacking</u>.
*The free access of study protocols enables to verify which studies are or were conducted and hence permits to '''avoid unnecessary duplication''' of animal studies.
*Most preregistration forms request information linked to <u>internal validity</u> (e.g., randomisation, blinding, sample size calculation), which may impact '''study design robustness and reporting'''. +
