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 The peer reviewer had sent the unpublished manuscript to a colleague with whom he was writing a review.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 The review was retracted, and the peer reviewer apologized.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-0000001C-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-0000001D-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001E-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-0000000C-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-0000000D-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-0000000E-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-0000002A-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000002B-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. +
