In Detail (Has Detail)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Here you can go in more detail and even add subheaders to give more relevant background information.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
C
Legally, minor children and adolescents cannot give legally valid informed consent, but they can actively participate in research discussions—this is called assent.
This means that, with age-appropriate information, they are involved in the decision-making process based on their capacities rather than merely not expressing dissent. Obtaining assent must consider age, individual circumstances, life experiences, emotional and psychological maturity, and the family situation.
As adolescents approach the age of majority, their agreement may be ethically equivalent to consent, with parental consent regarded as "co-consent." If adolescents reach the legal age of majority during the research and become capable of independent informed consent, their written consent for continued participation must be obtained. +
D
The detailed report on national guidelines in Europe is available here:
[https://community.embassy.science/c/entire/entirerep/24 Latest EnTIRE/Repository topics - The Embassy of Good Science]
References:
1. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology 2020;18(7): e3000737.
2. Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), [https://sfdora.org/about-dora/ https://sfdora.org/about-dora/#];2012 [accessed 2022.11th January].
3. All European Academies (ALLEA). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf;2017 [accessed 2021.11th January].
4. Council ER. Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://www.eetika.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/hea_teadustava_eng_trukis.pdf;2017.
5. Ministry of Higher Education and Science. Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/files-2014-1/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf;2014.
6. The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity, https://api.swiss-academies.ch/site/assets/files/25709/kodex_layout_en_web.pdf;2021.
7. Forum RIN. Irish National Policy Statement for Ensuring Research Integrity, https://www.iua.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/IUA_Research_Integrity_in_Ireland_Report_2019.pdf;2014.
<br /> +
Q
1. Tenny S, Brannan GD, Brannan JM, Sharts-Hopko NC. Qualitative Study. 2020
2. Giacomini, M. K. & Cook, D. J. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care. B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based MedicineWorking Group. JAMA 2000;284: 478–482. +
V
This list might help when using virtues in e.g. teaching about responsible conduct of research. *Virtues in bold mirror the principles for research integrity outlined in the [[European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]].
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Virtue
!Meanings in research integrity & ethics
|-
|'''Accountability'''*
|Responsibility, answerability
|-
|Availability
|Efficaciousness, readiness to come to effect
|-
|Clarity of purpose
|Visionary, targeted, zeal
|-
|Collaborative spirit
|Cooperative, synergistic, sharing
|-
|Competency
|Expertise, proficiency, capability
|-
|Compliance
|Willingness to conform/follow
|-
|Courage
|Braveness, heroic resoluteness
|-
|Creativity
|Inventiveness, imagination, originality
|-
|Critical awareness
|Analytic, insightful, rationality
|-
|Curiosity
|Eagerness to know or to explore, inquisitiveness
|-
|Diligence
|Earnestness, perseverance in carrying out action
|-
|Empathy
|Understanding, compassion, recognition
|-
|Fairness
|Justice, equity
|-
|'''Honesty'''*
|Truthfulness, candidness, sincerity
|-
|Humility
|Humbleness, modesty
|-
|Loyalty
|Faithfulness, allegiance, fidelity
|-
|Moderation
|Temperance, patience
|-
|Morality
|Ethicalness, righteousness, decency
|-
|Objectivity
|Neutrality, unbiased, impartiality, open-minded
|-
|Open-mindedness
|Willing to reconsider views, receptiveness, tolerance
|-
|Patience
|Perseverance, willingness to endure
|-
|Perseverance
|Dedication, determination, persistence
|-
|Positivity
|Alacrity, willingness
|-
|Punctuality
|Readiness, promptness, steadiness
|-
|Reflexivity
|Thoughtfulness, contemplativeness, deliberation
|-
|'''Reliability'''*
|Trustworthiness, accuracy, dependability
|-
|Resoluteness
|Determination, persistence, purposefulness
|-
|'''Respectfulness'''*
|Politeness, having good manners, courtesy
|-
|Responsibility
|Accountability, liable, trustworthiness, truthfulness
|-
|Selflessness
|Altruism, benevolence
|-
|Sincerity
|Earnestness, truthfulness, veracity, honesty
|-
|Thoroughness
|Care, scrupulousness
|-
|Transparency
|Clarity, not hiding, honesty, openness
|-
|Trustworthiness/truthfulness
|Honesty, accuracy, sincerity
|}
[[File:Virtue wheel2 NW.png|center|frameless|1050x1050px]]A visual ‘wheel’ of virtues is also presented as a useful resource for teaching (with no virtue prioritized over others to inspire but not lead participants). This resource was created by Neelam Wright, University of Surrey.
[
Good practice in confidentiality in research involves a combination of ethical, legal, and technical measures.
- Informed consent: Clearly explain what data will be collected, how it will be used, who will have access, how long it will be stored, and under what conditions it might be shared or disclosed. Obtain explicit consent for audio/video recording, data linkage, or secondary use where relevant.
- Data minimization and de-identification: Collect only the personal data that are necessary for the research aims, and remove or code direct identifiers as early as possible (e.g., names, addresses, ID numbers). Use pseudonymization or anonymization to reduce re-identification risk, especially before data sharing<span lang="HR">.</span>
- Secure storage and access control: Store identifiable data on secure, password-protected systems or encrypted devices, with access limited to authorized team members who need the data for their role. Avoid using personal email or unsecured cloud services for identifiable information<span lang="HR">.</span>
- Clear confidentiality limits: Explain any legal or ethical limits to confidentiality (e.g., mandatory reporting of imminent harm, child abuse, or serious crime) in participant information materials, so that participants have realistic expectations.
- Data management planning: Develop and follow a data management plan that specifies retention periods, conditions for archiving or sharing data, and procedures for secure destruction of identifiers when no longer needed<span lang="HR">.</span>
- Training and institutional support: Institutions should provide policies, training, and technical support to help researchers comply with data protection laws and good practice in confidentiality.
Examples can be found on The Embassy of Good Science, where theme pages and cases illustrate how researchers handle confidentiality challenges in practice, such as working with vulnerable groups, online data, or highly sensitive topics.
Explain the research to both parents and children using clear, age-appropriate language so they can understand what participation involves.
Researchers should provide information about the purpose of the study, procedures, potential risks, and benefits in a way that is understandable to both parents and children. For children, explanations should be adapted to their age, maturity, and level of comprehension. Using simple language, examples, or visual materials can help children better understand what participation means and what will happen during the study.<div><div>
Obtain informed consent from parents or legal guardians before including a child in a study.
Because children usually cannot legally provide full informed consent, researchers must obtain permission from parents or legal guardians before enrolling a child in research. Parents should receive clear and complete information about the study so they can make an informed decision about whether participation is appropriate and safe for their child. The consent process should be voluntary and allow parents enough time to ask questions and consider their decision.<div><div>
Seek the child’s assent whenever the child is capable of understanding the research.
In addition to parental consent, children who are able to understand the research should be asked for their assent. This means the child is informed about the study in an appropriate way and given the opportunity to agree or decline participation. Seeking assent respects the child’s developing autonomy and encourages their active involvement in decisions that affect them. Even if parents provide consent, the child’s willingness to participate should always be considered and respected.
</div></div></div></div> +
While all COIs are related to contradictory primary and secondary interests, they can be traced to different causes and result in different types of detrimental research practices. Moreover, safeguards to address COIs vary depending on whether they are avoidable and how they can be mitigated. It is important to emphasize that while COIs can lead to intentional breaches of research integrity and research ethics, conflicting interests are more likely to result in unintentional bias.
In general, it is common to distinguish between financial and non-financial COIs. Financial COIs occur if researchers receive direct payments from the sponsor of a study, hold stocks in the sponsoring company, receive financial benefits from the sponsor for services, or have any other financial relationship with the producer of the product investigated in a study.<sup>[6]</sup> Due to the resulting incentive structure, financial COIs increase the likelihood of bias towards results favorable to the company directly or indirectly paying the researchers.
Non-financial COIs, by contrast, are unrelated to financial remuneration and tend to be more difficult to identify. At least three types of non-financial COIs can be differentiated: personal COIs, intellectual COIs, and medical COIs.<sup>[7]</sup>
Personal COIs are usually attributable to positive or negative personal relationships, even though conflicts of conscience (that is, conflicts between the personal values of researchers and the demands placed on them by their institution) also fall into this category. Biased peer-review is a well-known example of the detrimental effects of personal relationships because the peer review system is based on the premise of reviewer neutrality. Reviewers who have recently collaborated with the author(s) of a paper or grant application or who work in the same department might have a more favorable view on the paper or application under review than reviewers without such personal associations. Even if reviews are based on a blinded system, reviewers might know or be able to guess who the authors are, especially in highly specialized and rather small fields of research or when researchers can suggest reviewers. Negative personal relationships, by contrast, can have the opposite effect.<sup>[8]</sup>
Intellectual COIs occur when researchers become so convinced of the truth of a particular finding or paradigm that they become biased against alternative explanations and dismissive of contradictory findings, regardless of the quality of the evidence.<sup>[9]</sup>
Medical COIs refer to situations where the personal medical experiences of researchers could bias their research in that area. For example, a researcher who has suffered from a particular disease, could be inclined to view this disease in a way colored by personal experiences.<sup>[10]</sup> This may have methodologically unjustifiable effects on research design or, in the same way as intellectual COIs, lead to biased interpretations of results.
COIs are addressed by three types of safeguards: disclosure, management and prohibition. They can be disclosed to the research institution, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, journal editors and readers, and research participants. Management refers to erecting procedures that mitigate the risk of COIs, for example by replacing researchers with a COI with researchers without a COI for certain parts of a research project. Prohibition refers to prohibiting certain types of research if a COI exists. Employees of pharmaceutical companies cannot lead clinical drug trials of drugs produced by their company, for example.<sup>[11]</sup>
According to current regulations, financial COIs must be declared so that readers are made aware of conflicting interests and can scrutinize papers accordingly. Non-financial COIs are regulated less stringently and perhaps also less amenable to formal regulation. Overall, it is strongly recommended to avoid personal COIs by refraining from suggesting reviewers who might be biased as well as by refraining from accepting to review manuscripts or grant applications one cannot assess neutrally. Intellectual COIs can perhaps best be managed by regular self-reflection and regular participation in reflection-based research integrity trainings, such as, for example, the VIRT2UE training or the PRINTEGER Upright program. Medical COIs could potentially be declared, yet this is not usually done and would be challenging both legally and ethically because it would require the disclosure of sensitive personal information.
Overall, COIs can take many forms and be mitigated through different types of safeguards. As such, COIs are not breaches of research integrity or research ethics, yet they increase the likelihood of violations of good scientific practice. Therefore, the research community has adopted mitigatory measures to manage COIs that might require further refinement in the future.
'''References'''
[1] Emanuel E.J., & Thompson D.F. (2008). The concept of conflict of interest. In: Emanual, E.J., Grady, C., Crouch, R.A, Lie, R.K., Miller, F.G., & Wendler, D.D. ''The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 758-766.
[2] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Key issues
[3] Ibid.
[4] WMA International Code of Medical Ethics, 2006. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-international-code-of-medical-ethics/
[5] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Learning objectives and introduction
[6] Ibid.
[7] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Key issues
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
'''References'''
Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. European journal of human genetics : EJHG. 2010;18(4):398-403. Epub 2009/11/06.
<br /> +
1. Kitchin R. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures, and Their Consequences. SAGE;2014. 241 p.
2. Tedersoo L, Küngas R, Oras E, Köster K, Eenmaa H, Leijen Ä, et al. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci Data. 2021 Jul 27;8:192.
3. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. The essential nature of sharing in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Dec;16(4):783–99.
4. Gabelica M, Bojcic R, Puljak L. Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022 May 30;150:33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019.
5. Sustainable Digital Data Preservation and Access Network Partners. NSF - National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 2]. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'
6. Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, et al. Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. PLOS ONE. 2011 Jun 29;6(6):e21101.
<br /> +
*'''Process of Obtaining Consent and Assent''': Outline the steps for obtaining consent from parents or guardians and assent from children, including documentation and verbal explanations.
*'''Cultural Considerations''': Discuss the impact of cultural values on parental consent and children's autonomy, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive practices.
*'''Researcher Training''': Provide guidance for researchers on effective communication strategies when discussing research with children and their families.
*'''Monitoring and Reporting''': Suggest methods for monitoring the consent and assent process, including feedback mechanisms to address any concerns that arise during the study.
+
The big issue in clinical research is collecting an informed consent from all participants included in research. This can become a dilemma in psychiatry research, too. In psychiatry, the patient should be stable and informed about all procedures that will be taken. However, collecting an informed consent from psychiatry patient can become a challenge. A patient should be fit for work tasks and should be cognitive capable of understanding that he is a part of research. +
'''Juniors only''' In 2018, the session was extended with a second meeting where only junior researchers attend. In this session they have the opportunity to discuss issues that they did not feel comfortable to discuss with the seniors present and/or issues related to supervisors.
'''Organizing members''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by and for researchers from Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, which is also where the initiative was conceived by prof. dr. Van der Flier (head of research), in 2015. The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by the research quality committee of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and receives no support from external parties. +
'''Examples of common situations which involve dilemmas'''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="200" valign="top"|'''Dilemma'''
| width="200" valign="top"|'''Value A'''
| width="200" valign="top"|'''Value B'''
|-
| width="200" valign="top"|Co-authorship
<br />
| width="200" valign="top"|intellectual contribution
| width="200" valign="top"|collegiality
|-
|Sharing your data openly
|Verification & re-use
|Rebuttal
|}
'''Examples of common values & principles involved in dilemmas'''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="120" valign="top"|'''Personal'''
| width="120" valign="top"|'''Scientific'''
| width="120" valign="top"|'''Technological'''
| width="120" valign="top"|'''Professional'''
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|Honesty
| width="120" valign="top"|Accuracy
| width="120" valign="top"|Utility
| width="120" valign="top"|Mentorship
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|Curiosity
| width="120" valign="top"|Completeness
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|Collaboration
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|Trustworthiness
| width="120" valign="top"|Consistency
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|Respect
| width="120" valign="top"|Objectivity
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|Autonomy
| width="120" valign="top"|Auditability
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|Collegiality
| width="120" valign="top"|Universality
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|Precision
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
|-
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|Verification
| width="120" valign="top"|
| width="120" valign="top"|
|}
<br /> +
The PRO-RES Framework is built upon a set of resources that both help to generate ethical research and assess its integrity. The resources are operationalised in a toolbox that includes several means for assessing ethical research. The final ‘pillar’ in the PRO-RES Framework is ‘The Accord’ – a statement of principles for ethical evidence-gathering that individuals, agencies and organisations can sign up to as an assurance of their best intentions when gathering and using evidence to inform policies. +
Both, SSH and STEM models do have pros and cons. Most of pros and cons are explained in the article. I think that it will be the best to try to use both models since both could provide benefits. However, we should be aware of the cons and try to minimize them. +
<span lang="EN-GB">In sum, experts agree that AI should be a tool, not a replacement, in peer review. Human judgment, contextual expertise, and ethical reasoning remain at the core of reviewing. While AI can help catch typos, check clarity, or suggest related literature, it cannot “understand” the novelty or subtleties of new research beyond its training data. Consequently, all major guidelines view any AI-assisted review as the reviewer’s own work for which they must take responsibility. For instance, the ACS states that sending manuscript content to an AI is a breach of reviewer confidentiality. In practice, responsible reviewers might use AI to polish language or spot obvious errors, but they will always interpret, verify, and augment those suggestions with their own expertise. The consensus is clear: AI may enhance efficiency (e.g., auto-summarizing or checking citations), but final judgments, criticisms and decisions should remain entirely human.</span> +
Related guidelines
<span lang="EN-GB">Cochrane – Setting the standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis</span> (6)
<span lang="EN-GB">Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence have published a joint position statement on the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in evidence synthesis. Link: https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/news/setting-standards-responsible-ai-use-evidence-synthesis</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) – AI and Publication Ethics</span> (7)
<span lang="EN-GB">COPE stresses transparency, accountability, and ethical oversight in the use of AI tools in scholarly writing. It warns about the risks of undisclosed AI usage, such as potential misconduct, plagiarism, and lack of author responsibility. Link: https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/emerging-ai-dilemmas-scholarly-publishing</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">EQUATOR Network – Reporting and Research Transparency Standards</span> (8) (9)
<span lang="EN-GB">The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network promotes transparency, completeness, and integrity in research reporting, including responsible disclosure of any AI-assisted methodologies in manuscript preparation. This supports reproducibility and scientific credibility. The CLAIM guideline offers a standardized reporting framework for artificial intelligence studies in medical imaging, emphasizing transparency, reproducibility, and methodological clarity. It encourages responsible AI use by requiring detailed reporting of data, models, validation, and analytical processes in scientific manuscripts. Links: https://www.equator-network.org/ , https://pubs.rsna.org/page/ai/claim</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">ICMJE Recommendations on the Use of AI in Scientific Publishing</span> (5) (10) (11)
<span lang="EN-GB">The ICMJE states that AI-assisted technologies must be transparently disclosed and cannot be listed as authors, as they do not meet authorship criteria or accountability standards. Human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of AI-assisted content. Link: https://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence</span> (12)
<span lang="EN-GB">UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) offers a global ethical framework for responsible AI use, highlighting transparency, human oversight, accountability, and the protection of research integrity. These principles are directly relevant to AI-assisted academic writing and research practices. Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">WAME Recommendations on AI and Chatbots in Scholarly Publications</span> (13)
<span lang="EN-GB">WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) clearly states that AI tools cannot qualify as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the content or ensure scientific integrity. The organization recommends explicit disclosure and careful human review of all AI-assisted text. Link: https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">References:</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">1) Oxford English Dictionary. Artificial intelligence (n.) [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2023 Dec. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">2) Resnik DB, Hosseini M. Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? Accountability in Research. 2025 Mar 24;1–13. doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">3) How to disclose AI tools in academic writing (with templates). Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">4) BaHammam A. The Transparency Paradox: Why Researchers Avoid Disclosing AI Assistance in Scientific Writing. NSS. 2025 Oct;Volume 17:2569–74. doi:10.2147/NSS.S568375</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">5) Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing [Internet]. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">6) Setting the standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis [Internet]. Cochrane. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000003-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">7) AI and Publication Ethics [Internet]. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000004-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">8) Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research [Internet]. EQUATOR Network. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000005-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">9) Tejani AS, Klontzas ME, Gatti AA, Mongan JT, Moy L, Park SH, et al. Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): 2024 Update. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. 2024 Jul 1;6(4):e240300. doi:10.1148/ryai.240300</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">10) Zielinski C. Why artificial intelligence is not an author. ESE. 2025 Feb 14;51:e142904. doi:10.3897/ese.2025.e142904</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">11) Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023 Feb 25;27(1):75. doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">12) Ethics of Artificial Intelligence [Internet]. The UNESCO Courier. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000006-QINU`"'</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">13) Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña Jr JF, et al. Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Colomb Med. 2023 Dec 1;54(3):e1015868. doi:10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868</span>
Selma Arapovic Dzakula and Vinko Bubic contributed to this theme.
Prioritising interventions and reproducibility measures to improve research reproducibility: a Delphi consultation method +
'''Round 1'''
In the first round, the panelists scored reproducibility measures and interventions on a scale from 1 to 10 on Likert scale. Items scoring 8–10 with at least 70% agreement were added to the priority list. Items scoring 1–3 with at least 70% agreement were discarded. The panelists could also comment on their scores. The reproducibility measures and interventions that scored 4-7, with 70% agreement, were again revised in the second round.
'''Round 2'''
The panelists reviewed the reproducibility measures and interventions that scored 4–7 with 70% agreement. The rankings and anonymized comments from the first round were shared to help participants reassess their scores.
'''Final Round'''
The final round consisted of an online meeting with eight selected panellists (two researchers, two editors, two publishers, one funder, and one policymaker). During this session, the participants revisited highest-scoring interventions that had not reached consensus in previous rounds. The panel then had a task to review the ranking order of the two prioritised lists. After the final round there were no changes to the prioritised lists. +
Since research in which children participate are very demanding, the research approach should be explained in great details, so I would like to add some more important notes.
It is always necessary to obtain the consent of the Ethics Committee first, no matter what type of study is conducted. Certainly, it is good to have any kind of consent from the Community, association, or similar.
Considering the fact that the research including children do not have same protocols, Ethics Committees might also ask for the consent signed by the child. For example, if the child can comprehend research, in addition to asking for the consent of the parents or guardian, it would be good to have the child's consent as well. It may happen that the parent/guardian agrees, but the child does not agree. The research should always be explained in detail to the parent, but also to the child if it is old enough to understand it. The parent, as well as the child, may later decide that they want to leave the research.
It is also necessary to explain in detail how the identity of the participant will be protected. In this case, it is best to anonymize the data so that no one could identify participants.
Data should be stored in a safe place, where no one has access without authorization. Data can also be coded, that is data pseudonymization. In this way, you need to take even more care of the data, because even though it is coded, the data is still very vulnerable. Certainly, it is necessary to follow all research instructions and local legislative, and GDPR. In the application to the Ethics Committee, it is necessary to state whether the research participant has any benefits or risks from participating. Whoever submits the research should clearly emphasize this in the application. Also, if it is a questionnaire, it would be the best id the children could fill in the questionnaire by themselves, so that there is no inherent bias. However, there is always the question if the child is mature enough to comprehend the meaning of the questions asked in the questionnaire. Therefore, when dealing with children, always have in mind if there are mature enough.
1. <span lang="EN-GB">Council of Science Editor. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications [Internet]. c2024 [updated 2020 Jun;cited 2025 Feb]. Available from: https://cse.memberclicks.net/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities#OtherAuthorshipIssues</span>
2. COPE Council. Handling requests to publish articles anonymously - English <span lang="EN-GB">[Internet]. c2024 [updated 2024 Aug;cited 2025 Feb].</span> Available from: https://doi.org/10.24318/sRpW6E8a +
