What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
"
An anthropologist finds their work has been plagiarised. The University Press claimed that while there had been plagiarism there had been no copyright infringement. +
A researcher in an urban ghetto is offered some stolen goods as a gift. Accepting or not accepting the goods has implications for the researcher's integration into the community she is studying. She accepts the stolen clothes but not the record player. +
A researcher used the help of a professional writer to write a research paper. Since she paid for the service, she did not plan to disclose the contribution after the first draft was finished. Her unwillingness to acknowledge the contribution made the company providing the service threaten her that the writer would not finish writing the paper. She changed her mind only when the editor of the journal where she had intended to submit her paper responded that even paid writing assistance should be acknowledged. +
'
This is a factual case. The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) was started by ''Copernicus Publications'' in March 2013. After publishing a special issue on ''“Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”'' was published a series of concerns about the selection of referees (nepotism) were raised. This resulted in Copernicus Publications shutting down the journal. +
This factual case describes an instance of plagiarism by a peer reviewer. The peer reviewer had sent the unpublished manuscript to a colleague with whom he was writing a review. Portions of text from the manuscript under review ended up in the published review written by the peer reviewer and his colleague. The review was retracted, and the peer reviewer apologized. +
0
This case analysis uses a procedure advanced by Jack R. Fraenkel (1976) for the purpose of values education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"' Fraenkel (1932-2013) earned a PhD from Stanford University in 1966 and subsequently worked at San Francisco State University for more than 30 years. When he retired, he was Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000063-QINU`"' +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The Seven Steps Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:
<br />
*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]])
These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup>]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|<sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup>]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.
A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup>]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----
[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000010-QINU`"'
[[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000011-QINU`"'
[[#%20ftnref3|<sup>[3]</sup>]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000012-QINU`"'
[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[4]</sup>]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.
The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:
#The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
#The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
#The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.
[[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.
The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.
In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.
Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000019-QINU`"' +
This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup>]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.
[[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"' +
1
"10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FAIR Research" describes the key issues of curating reproducible and FAIR research (CURE-FAIR). It lists standards-based guidelines for ten practices, focusing primarily on research compendia produced by quantitative data-driven social science. +
3
This article introduces three whistle-blowers and describes their journey in blowing a whistle.
*First one is about Uri Simonsohn of University of Pennsylvania who calls himself a data-whisperer. Uri was the one who blew the whistle on two famous cases of data fabrication and data manipulation, namely those involving Dirk Smeesters and Lawrence Sanna.
*The second case is about Helen Hill of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who persisted for nearly 14 years to expose Anupam Bishayee's misconduct and repeatedly failed.
*The third person uses the pseudonym "Clare Francis" to flag suspicious cases of plagiarism or figure manipulation/duplication.
<br /> +
In this podcast, produced by Wiley, Brian Nosek gives three insights into what researchers and the research community can do to "close the gaps between research values and practice". +
A
This blog post is about the retraction of a 24-year-old paper that had plagiarised a 1975 article. At the time of retraction, the author held an executive position in the private education sector in Southern Africa. +
A researcher sought to include a figure from a textbook in his manuscript for a forthcoming submission. Their colleague recommended asking permission to reproduce the figure from the publisher of the book. The researcher emailed the publisher and permission was granted without any charge. +
A junior researcher published an article. A senior researcher of the organisation read the article and noticed the striking resemblance of the article topic with one of his accepted research projects, which was still in ongoing. They asked the junior researcher for their raw data. The junior researcher was unable to provide the data. Finally, they admitted to fabricating the data. +
A postgraduate medical student at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) complained to the vice chancellor of research that they had not been included in the authors list of an article, which used results from her thesis. The senior researcher involved in her thesis claimed that she has forgotten to include the student as an author. +
A researcher at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) included a senior researcher of another department in the authors list of their article. Although the senior researcher was not aware of their inclusion, he thanked the researcher upon receiving a copy of the published article. +
Upon acceptance of a manuscript prepared by a researcher, the editor-in-chief of the journal asked the researcher to add an article published in their journal to the reference list. The researcher agreed to the request. +
A researcher submitted a manuscript to two journals simultaneously. The decision of the editorial boards of both journals was to accept the article with minor revisions. The researcher emailed the editor in-chief of one of the journals and withdrew her submission. The article was published in the other journal. +
A researcher submitted a manuscript to a journal. After a couple of months of not hearing from the editorial board, they re-submitted the manuscript to another journal. A day after re-submission, they received an email from the first journal that their article was going to be accepted after minor revisions. They withdrew the re-submission from the second journal. +
A researcher had previously published an article in his native language. They prepared another article in English and submitted it to another journal. The manuscript was accepted for publication. However, the editor in-chief of the English journal managed to find out about the first article and asked the author to clarify the issue. The researcher asked for permission from the first journal to publish the article in English in another journal. Permission was granted. The article was published in English. +
This case study describes how secondary qualitative data can be used and how the data can be anonymized. One issue arising from anonymisation of qualitative data is losing important contextual information. Ethical, practical and theoretical questions emerge when delving into the issue of anonymization of qualitative data for secondary use. In addition, the study describes some strengths and weaknesses of anonymization policies.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001C0-QINU`"' +
This is a resource for various stakeholders (scholars, funders, regulators, and ethics board) who are interested in how research in ethnography complies with the current requirements on data protection (GDPR) and open science. +
Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest. A landmark study that endorsed a simple way to curb cheating is going to be retracted nearly a decade later after a group of scientists found that it relied on faked data. According to the 2012 paper, when people signed an honesty declaration at the beginning of a form, rather than the end, they were less likely to lie. A seemingly cheap and effective method to fight fraud, it was [https://www.fastcompany.com/3068506/lemonade-is-using-behavioral-science-to-onboard-customers-and-keep-them-honest adopted] by at least one insurance company, [http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT_FraudErrorDebt_accessible.pdf tested] by [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/2016%20Social%20and%20Behavioral%20Sciences%20Team%20Annual%20Report.pdf government] [http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT_FraudErrorDebt_accessible.pdf agencies] around the world, and taught to corporate executives. It made a splash among academics, who cited it in their own research more than 400 times. +
This guideline, published by the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH), is meant to supplement the Ethical guidelines for research in the social sciences, humanities, law and theology (alo published by NESH. It is important because it pertains specifically to internet research, the use of which is growing in the social sciences and humanities. +
This guidebook is intended for teaching specific topics on responsible conduct of research (RCR) to a trainee group with different cultural backgrounds. The aim is to address the training needs of the large group of international postdocs. Materials presented in this guidebook could also serve as model content for RCR instruction of international trainees. +
In 2014 in a stemcell research institute in Japan a research misconduct case came to light. The case was excessively covered by the media, with the media not only portraying the accused scientists as perpetrators, but criticizing the entire research centre. One of the members of the research centre committed suicide, causing upheaval in the Japanese research scene. As the case describes, the damage of the scientific misonconduct reaches far beyond the misconduct itself. +
A supervisor writes an unsolicited and critical recommendation letter behind the back of his postdoc researcher who had not informed him of his application. The letter sketches a negative picture of the applicant. +
A case study appearing in a blog site that posts on sexual misconduct in higher education. Sexual demands, bullying, coercion, harassment and a long list of similar behaviours are less frequently reported as misconduct in research ethics; but do these behaviours comply with the ECCRI'"`UNIQ--ref-0000052E-QINU`"''s principle of respect for colleagues? or, with the good research practices of safeguards and collaborative working?
'"`UNIQ--references-0000052F-QINU`"' +
This is a factual anonymized case about a person who worked as a medical writer for almost 11 years. During this time she has written a variety of texts including the occasional ghostwritten article. In the article she describes her experience, motivation and her views about the problem of fraud in authorship. +
A New Challenge to Research Ethics: Patients-Led Research (PLR) and the Role of Internet Based Social Networks +
This article addresses a new model of clinical research - Participants-Led Research (PLR). It also identifies ethical, legal and social issues as well as relevant concepts that may help solve them. +
Using the theme of Charles Dickens' "Christmas Carol," this amusing Norwegian video with English subtitles presents consequences of plagiarism. +
This is a factual anonymised case focused on the practice of Gift Authorship. +
This factual case details a so-called ‘First-in-man’ (FIM) clinical trial that seriously harmed the six participants who received the drug under investigation. The report discusses the consequences of the disastrous trial for later FIM trials. The article considers the scientific consequences, such as the procedure to determine the acceptable dose of the drug, and reviews the ethical dimensions of FIM trials, like potential monetary compensation for the risks the participants take.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001A8-QINU`"' +
This short guide explains the basic concepts regarding digital humanities and the role of academic institutions in this matter. It also describes the skills and competences needed for doing digital humanities work as well as learning outcomes for digital humanities. +
This study examines the status of Ph.D. communication education in research ethics. The findings show that no Ph.D. communication program has a course specifically dedicated to communication research ethics. +
A University of Liverpool investigation determined that a former researcher there fabricated his data +
In 2017 a promising young liver specialist, was found to have fabricated spectroscopic findings. Several retractions followed the investigation.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002F5-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000002F6-QINU`"' +
This study provides information on evaluation of the citations related to publications by trainees in the Fogarty International Center's International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program. The authors analyzed 328 papers published between 2004 and 2008. The results show that the number of citations per paper is 3, 12.6% of papers were cited more than 10 times and the h-index is 22. +
Retraction Watch presents the case of a researcher who failed to declare conflicts of interest in his research; he has also allegedly fabricated and falsified data on his research to reach certain conclusions. +
In this randomized study, authors measured Biostatistics and Research Ethics online course knowledge, compared to traditional on-site training of the same course. Online and on-site training formats led to marked and similar improvements of knowledge in Biostatistics and Research Ethics. +
A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethic +
This study offers a framework to a democratic deliberation (DD) project regarding surrogate consent for dementia research. The authors concluded that participants learned and used new information, were collaborative and satisfied with the study. The participants also provided societal policy recommendations with regard to surrogate consent. +
A guidebook for teaching selected responsible conduct of research topics to a culturally diverse trainee group +
The aim of this textbook from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia was to address the training needs of a large group of international postdocs regarding the RCR. The textbook contains a summary of different themes related to RCR, a script to facilitate small group discussions and teaching materials for topics regarding data management, intellectual property and research misconduct.
<br /> +
A meta-analysis of studies of publication misrepresentation by applicants to residency and fellowship programs +
This study evaluates percentages of applicants to residency and fellowship programs that have publication misrepresentation reported in the literature. Most misrepresentations regard listing nonexistent articles, errors in authorship order and non-authorship. The study shows that misrepresentation decreases when uniform inclusion criteria are applied. +
A proposal for a model of informed consent for the collection, storage and use of biological materials for research purposes +
This article suggests a model of informed consent intended for the collection, storage and use of biological materials in local biobanks for health research purposes. The model can serve as a useful guideline for the development of specific consent forms that can be used by researchers. +
A qualitative approach to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies +
This article discusses qualitative approach to RCR training development, based on a sensemaking model. It identifies nine metacognitive reasoning strategies for future development of RCR training. +
The authors of this study conducted a scoping review to explore the competency requirements for editors of biomedical journals. They informed that this was the first step to develop a set of core competences for editors of biomedical journals. +
The study described systematic efforts to develop instructional programs with regard to defining and planning learning needs and environment as well as evaluating learning. The focus of the study was on research ethics. It concluded that a systematic framework to develop instruction in research ethics needs to be applied. +
This study presents an overview of virtue ethics theory. It also identifies common ethical problems in community-based participatory research (CBPR). The authors discuss how virtues can be used as a guide in ethical research practice. +
