Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

Salami publication + ( '"`UNIQ--references-00000006-QINU`"')

Responsible use of AI in peer review + (In sum, experts a … 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.d decisions should remain entirely human.)
Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities + (Both, SSH and STEM models do have pros and … 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.ware of the cons and try to minimize them.)
Consent and assent for research on children + (Explain the research to both parents and c … 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>hould always be considered and respected. </div></div></div></div>)
Telemedicine services for oncology patients + (Facilitators and barriers to acceptance: … Facilitators and barriers to acceptance:Convenience and cost reduction: Convenience is the most frequently cited facilitator for oncology patients. Telemedicine reduces the "transportation burden" and associated costs, which is particularly beneficial for patients with physical disabilities (3).Improved safety and privacy: Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients accepted telemedicine to avoid infection risks in hospital settings. Furthermore, some patients report that telephone follow-ups provide a greater sense of privacy than in-person hospital appointments (2).Physician recommendation: Trust in the provider plays a crucial role;patients are significantly more likely to download or use a health application if it is recommended by their physician (2).The digital divide and "telemedicine unreadiness": Older patients (specifically those over 75) are more likely to be "telemedicine unready" due to hearing or vision impairments, lack of internet-enabled hardware, or limited technical skills (5).Preference for personal connection: A significant barrier is the high value patients place on personal, face-to-face interaction with their physicians. Some studies indicate that even after successful use during the pandemic, the majority of patients were not inclined to continue with telehealth because they felt the distancing was a "bigger toll" than the risk of infection (2).Security and trust concerns: Concerns regarding data protection, confidentiality, and the potential for technical difficulties often decrease a patient's trust and willingness to use these services (2).<div></div>ness to use these services (2).<div></div>)
Confidentiality + (Good practice in confidentiality in resear … 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.- 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.- 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.- 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.ch as working with vulnerable groups, online data, or highly sensitive topics.)
Falsifiability and Attractor States in Scientific Theories: A Framework for Evaluating Evidence + (In the evaluation of scientific theories, … In the evaluation of scientific theories, the relationships between evidence and theory (the edges) are more critical than individual pieces of evidence (the nodes). Falsifiability acts as a key edge, ensuring that theories remain testable and open to revision based on new evidence. Attractor states provide a way to visualize the cumulative effect of these edges, indicating the overall direction in which the weight of evidence is pointing. which the weight of evidence is pointing.)
Consent and assent in research on children + (Legally, minor children and adolescents ca … 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. continued participation must be obtained.)
Inferring from P-values + (Part of the problem is scholarly journals … Part of the problem is scholarly journals which are prone to only publishing positive results. Changes in publishing policies and fees, especially in the era of digital, publicly available databases and journals, could provide a climate for publishing negative results. Pre-registrations of trials/research can only solve a problem if complete results are published after completion.te results are published after completion.)
Preregistration of animal study protocols + (Preclinicaltrials.eu is an international r … Preclinicaltrials.eu is an international registration platform dedicated to animal studies that was launched in 2018 by a team of Dutch researchers. With several features, the platform permits a fast and efficient (pre)registration, data sharing, and collaboration:*'''Free''' to access and use, with a '''short and focussed''' form to facilitate preregistration.*Preregistration under embargo is available to protect '''privacy''' and '''intellectual property.''' Protocols also receive a time-stamp to prove '''authenticity'''.*Track changed amendments are available to enable '''flexibility'''.*Anonymised personal details and required login to view protocols ensure '''confidentiality'''.*Protocol get a persistent identifier to use in grants or papers, which promotes '''FAIR data.'''*Researchers from the same field or working on similar topics can reach each other via encrypted messages and form '''collaborations'''.Moreover, preclinicaltrials.eu provides several resources to guide researchers with their preregistration. To know more about this registry, you may check their introduction video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYjLvDBTsV4 More knowledge on how to use the platform can be seen on this walkthrough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLu1fXYumykFor further information on preregistering at Preclinicaltrials.eu, you may check the registry's website: www.preclinicaltrials.eu or e-mail the Preclinicaltrials.eu team at info@preclinicaltrials.eurials.eu team at info@preclinicaltrials.eu)
Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available + (References: 1. Kreiman J. On pe … References: 1. Kreiman J. On peer review. ''J Speech, Lang Hear Res''. 2016;59(3):480-483. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-00432. Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. ''Sci 2017 1131''. 2017;113(1):633-650. doi:10.1007/S11192-017-2310-53. Ravinetto R, Caillet C, Zaman MH, et al. Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices. ''BMC Med Ethics 2021 221''. 2021;22(1):1-5. doi:10.1186/S12910-021-00667-74. Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. ''PLoS Biol''. 2019;17(2). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.30001515. Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. ''PLOS Biol''. 2021;19(4):e3000959. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.30009596. Reddick R. Preprints: how draft academic papers have become essential in the fight against COVID. Published 2021. Accessed October 11, 2021. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'7. Ledford H. Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives. Accessed October 11, 2021. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'8. Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson J, et al. Effect of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 – Preliminary Report. ''medRxiv''. Published online June 22, 2020:2020.06.22.20137273. doi:10.1101/2020.06.22.201372739. Davido B, Lansaman T, Bessis S, et al. Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin: a potential interest in reducing in-hospital morbidity due to COVID-19 pneumonia (HI-ZY-COVID)? ''medRxiv''. Published online May 11, 2020:2020.05.05.20088757. doi:10.1101/2020.05.05.2008875710. Piller C. ‘This is insane!’ Many scientists lament Trump’s embrace of risky malaria drugs for coronavirus. ''Science (80- )''. Published online March 26, 2020. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.ABB902111. Pradhan P, Pandey AK, Mishra A, et al. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. ''bioRxiv''. Published online January 31, 2020:2020.01.30.927871. doi:10.1101/2020.01.30.92787112. Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political: Impact of Social Sciences. Accessed October 11, 2021. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'13. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed October 11, 2021. www.allea.org14. Organization WH. ''Ethical Standards for Research during Public Health Emergencies: Distilling Existing Guidance to Support COVID-19 R&D''. World Health Organization;2020.-19 R&D''. World Health Organization;2020.)
Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports + (References: 1. The European Cod … References: 1. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed October 11, 2021. www.allea.org2. TP C. Authorship matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. ''Sci Eng Ethics''. 2014;20(2):345-361. doi:10.1007/S11948-013-9454-33. Vasilevsky NA, Hosseini M, Teplitzky S, et al. Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles. '''"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'''. 2020;28(1):23-43. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.17795914. 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. 2013;(May):2013. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"' Statement English.pdfiki-00000001-QINU`"' Statement English.pdf)
Being grossly unfair to your collaborators + (References: 1. Integrity in re … References: 1. Integrity in research collaborations: The Montreal Statement. ''Lancet''. 2013;382(9901):1310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62126-12. S G, B N, K D. Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study. ''Sci Eng Ethics''. 2018;24(5):1421-1436. doi:10.1007/S11948-017-9965-43. RM R, A T, M DC, et al. Challenges of non-commercial multicentre North-South collaborative clinical trials. ''Trop Med Int Health''. 2013;18(2):237-241. doi:10.1111/TMI.120364. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed October 11, 2021. www.allea.org5. 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. 2013;(May):2013. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"' Statement English.pdf6. Albert T, Wager E. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. Published online September 1, 2009. doi:10.24318/COPE.2018.1.1tember 1, 2009. doi:10.24318/COPE.2018.1.1)
AI use in scientific writing + (Related guidelines Cochrane – Setting the standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis (6)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 COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) – AI and Publication Ethics (7)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 EQUATOR Network – Reporting and Research Transparency Standards (8) (9)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 ICMJE Recommendations on the Use of AI in Scientific Publishing (5) (10) (11)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 UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (12)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 WAME Recommendations on AI and Chatbots in Scholarly Publications (13)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=106References:1) Oxford English Dictionary. Artificial intelligence (n.) [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2023 Dec. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"' 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:10.1080/08989621.2025.24819493) How to disclose AI tools in academic writing (with templates). Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'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 5) Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing [Internet]. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'6) Setting the standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis [Internet]. Cochrane. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000003-QINU`"' 7) AI and Publication Ethics [Internet]. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000004-QINU`"'8) Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research [Internet]. EQUATOR Network. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000005-QINU`"'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.24030010) Zielinski C. Why artificial intelligence is not an author. ESE. 2025 Feb 14;51:e142904. doi:10.3897/ese.2025.e14290411) Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023 Feb 25;27(1):75. doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04380-212) Ethics of Artificial Intelligence [Internet]. The UNESCO Courier. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000006-QINU`"' 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.v54i3.5868Selma Arapovic Dzakula and Vinko Bubic contributed to this theme. 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 Selma Arapovic Dzakula and Vinko Bubic contributed to this theme.)
Research with children + (Since research in which children participa … 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.s have in mind if there are mature enough.)
Networks and projects promoting research integrity + (The PRO-RES Framework is built upon a set … 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.ing and using evidence to inform policies.)
Informed consent in psychiatry + (The big issue in clinical research is coll … 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.derstanding that he is a part of research.)
Development and Value of National Research Integrity Codes + (The detailed report on national guidelines … 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. y_in_Ireland_Report_2019.pdf;2014. )
Funding (Sponsorship) bias + (The main method for assessing the efficacy … The main method for assessing the efficacy and safety of novel medications and other medical technology is clinical trials. The results of these research, when published in peer-reviewed publications, not only large medical community a scientific foundation for making treatment decisions, but also fund further research. However, pharmaceutical firms with large financial interests in the items being tested finance the majority of clinical trials. Additionally, they frequently pay the scientists who plan, carry out, evaluate, and report clinical trials in the form of wages or consultancy fees. This raises important questions like, should those who have a financial interest in clinical trial results be so invested in its execution? What potential sources of bias may the industry funding of these research have? How are reliable and impartial trial report data ensured by medical journals? Also, it brings a certain stigma and mistrust from the general public.When searching the literature notes and guidelines can be found on proper steps when publishing a research with funding from external sources. All research articles should have a funding acknowledgement statement included in the manuscript in the form of a sentence under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding’ directly after your Acknowledgements and Declaration of Conflicting Interests, if applicable, and prior to any Notes and your References. The funding agency should be written out in full, followed by the grant number in square brackets, see following example (the text in bold is mandatory, unless specified otherwise by the journal).A comma and space should be used to separate multiple grant numbers. When more than one agency contributed to funding a study, a semicolon should be used to separate each agency, and the word "and" should come before the last funder.Industry-funded studies will only be taken into consideration by SAGE publications if sponsorship is explicitly disclosed in the manuscript (where applicable). The funding source's involvement in the study's design, data analysis, and interpretation must also be disclosed by the authors.According to some researchers, to assure impartiality in clinical research industry-academia partnerships should only continue if academic medical centers take full ownership of the planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. There is an idea of setting up conflict-of-interest committees at academic institutions to maintain a close eye on the financial motivations of both clinician-investigators and institutional decision-makers. Such approaches may aid in reducing the possibility of bias in industry-sponsored research by introducing checks and balances for academic-industry collaborations.nces for academic-industry collaborations.)
Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) + (The term HARKing was coined in a seminal a … The term HARKing was coined in a seminal article by Kerr[1] and is usually used synonymously with accommodational hypothesizing[2] and presenting post hoc hypothesis as a priori (PPHA).[3] Kerr identified twelve potential costs of HARKing:1. Translating Type I errors into hard-to-eradicate theory.2. Propounding theories that cannot (pending replication) pass Popper’s disconfirmability test.3. Disguising post hoc explanations as a priori explanations (when the former ted also be more ad hoc, and consequently, less useful).4. Not communicating valuable information about what did not work.5. Taking unjustified statistical licence.6. Presenting an inaccurate model of science to students.7. Encouraging “fudging” in other grey areas.8. Making us less receptive to serendipitous findings.9. Encouraging adoption of narrow, context-bound new theory.10. Encouraging retention of too-broad, disconfirmable old theory.11. Inhibiting identification of plausible alternative hypotheses.12. Implicitly violating basic ethical principles.While Kerr’s article initially was not widely cited, this changed in the wake of the replication crisis and empirical studies into the prevalence and drivers of detrimental research practices and research misconduct. The surge of interest in HARKing worryingly showed that it indeed is a rather prevalent practice. Various studies on the prevalence of detrimental research practices found that a sizeable proportion of researchers (up to 58% in one study) from different disciplines (most notably psychology) did engage in HARKing in the past.[4]To identify measures to reduce HARKing, it is necessary to understand its causes. A key driving factor of HARKing most likely is publication bias: it is much more difficult to publish negative findings than positive findings, and confirmatory research seemingly following a hypothetico-deductive model is generally higher valued than exploratory research, at least in most fields of research. The number of publications, however, still is one of the most important metrics commonly used in researcher evaluation. As a result, researchers have an incentive to publish as much as possible, while the publication system rewards analyses that (seemingly) yield positive findings derived from hypothesis testing research.One pathway to reduce HARKing thus is changing the incentives for researchers by, for example, evaluating the quality rather than the quantity of publications and recognizing the value of replication studies. The latter also would be facilitated by a comprehensive move towards open science and a recognition of the value of open science practices. Another pathway to reduce HARKing is preregistration because it helps tying the hands of researchers before the data analysis. If researchers decide to preregister a study, they submit a time-stamped paper describing the rationale of their study, the experimental and analytical methods they will use, and their hypotheses. This document cannot be changed at a later stage so that HARKing would be easily detectable and lead to inconsistencies in the line of argument. If the pre-registered study is reviewed, publication is guaranteed if the registered protocol is followed, regardless of the results. Consequently, preregistration and changes in the incentive system are potentially mutually reinforcing. However, it is worth noting that it is in principle possible to preregister studies after the results are known (PARKing) and thereby reap the reputational benefits coming with what seems to be a commitment to methodological rigor without actually following the practice.[5]Although pure HARKing is unquestionably a detrimental research practice because it misportrays the research process, tends to bias results and ultimately deceives readers, the same cannot necessarily be said about other forms of post hoc hypothesizing. Using the fictional example of a group of epidemiologists conducting a drug trial to cure a new life-threatening disease, Hollenbeck and Wright argue that HARKing is not detrimental to science if it is done transparently and informed by theory, a practice they call THARKing (transparently hypothesizing after the results are known).[6] In their example, the epidemiologists initially find no effect of the tested drug, but know of cases where it apparently worked. Discussing about these cases, they recognize that all cured patients they know of are female, yet a reanalysis of the data turns out insignificant, even though the effect size for women is larger than for men. They continue discussing if gender could be an important factor and, drawing on their implicit theoretical knowledge, develop the hypothesis that estrogen levels (that peak at certain ages) might be a crucial moderating variable. A reanalysis of their data corroborates their hypothesis. They publish an article summarizing their study, noting in the discussion section that the age-by-gender interaction was the result of an exploratory analysis conducted after the main effects turned out to be insignificant. Other research teams replicate their study, and eventually a meta-analysis confirms their findings. Hollenbeck and Wright argue that THARKing, unlike secretly hypothesizing after the results are known, SHARKing or pure HARKing), is justifiable if readers are transparently informed that a hypothesis is post hoc rather than a priori in the discussion section of an article (in other words, the introduction in their view should only include a priori hypotheses).In general, pure HARKing is a detrimental research practice and hampers scientific progress. It can be disincentivized by changes in the research system, such as changes in researcher assessment and increasing preregistration of studies. Transparent post hoc hypothesizing, by contrast, seems justifiable if the exploratory nature of results is clearly stated. '''References'''[1] Kerr, N. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. ''Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2''(3), 196-217. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4][2] Hitchcock, C., & Sober, E. (2004). Prediction versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting. ''The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'', ''55''(1), 1–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3541832 [3] Leung, K. (2011). Presenting Post Hoc Hypotheses as A Priori: Ethical and Theoretical Issues. ''Management and Organization Review, 7''(3)'','' 471-479. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011][4] An overview of different studies on the prevalence of HARKing can be found in Table 1 in Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. ''Review of General Psychology, 21,'' 308-320''.'' doi: [[10.1037/gpr0000128]][5] Yamada, Y. (2018). How to Crack Pre-registration: Toward Transparent and Open Science. ''Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1831.'' doi: [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831][6] Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the Case for Post Hoc Analysis of Scientific Data. ''International Journal of Qualitative Methods'', ''43''(1), 5-18. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920947600 10.1177/1609406920947600]nal Journal of Qualitative Methods'', ''43''(1), 5-18. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920947600 10.1177/1609406920947600])
Virtues in research integrity + (This list might help when using virtues in … 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.reated by Neelam Wright, University of Surrey.)
Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective + (While all COIs are related to contradictor … 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.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11]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.6] Ibid. [7] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Key issues [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid.)