Research Ethics最新文献

{"title":"Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing","authors":"Mina Mehregan","doi":"10.1177/17470161211068745","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211068745","url":null,"abstract":"Citation is an essential practice in scientific publishing. However, it is mandatory that citing the sources in a scientific work is performed in a proper manner. Manipulating citations in research articles is one form of academic research misconduct that violates publication ethics. Citation manipulation simply occurs for the purpose of increasing the number of citations of a researcher or a journal. Unfortunately, there has been a growing trend for this type of misconduct recently and this has not received much attention from the science community. The most effective solution to prevent the growth of such unethical practices is for reputable journals to impose stricter rules on reference evaluation criteria in order to emphasize on the appropriateness of the citations.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"79 1","pages":"163 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80141938","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using Wearable Cameras to Investigate Health-Related Daily Life Experiences: A Literature Review of Precautions and Risks in Empirical Studies.","authors":"Laurel E Meyer,&nbsp;Lauren Porter,&nbsp;Meghan E Reilly,&nbsp;Caroline Johnson,&nbsp;Salman Safir,&nbsp;Shelly F Greenfield,&nbsp;Benjamin C Silverman,&nbsp;James I Hudson,&nbsp;Kristin N Javaras","doi":"10.1177/17470161211054021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211054021","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automated, wearable cameras can benefit health-related research by capturing accurate and objective information about individuals' daily experiences. However, wearable cameras present unique privacy- and confidentiality-related risks due to the possibility of the images capturing identifying or sensitive information from participants and third parties. Although best practice guidelines for ethical research with wearable cameras have been published, limited information exists on the risks of studies using wearable cameras. The aim of this literature review was to survey risks related to using wearable cameras, and precautions taken to reduce those risks, as reported in empirical research. Forty-five publications, comprising 36 independent studies, were reviewed, and findings revealed that participants' primary concerns with using wearable cameras included physical inconvenience and discomfort in certain situations (e.g., public settings). None of the studies reviewed reported any serious adverse events. Although it is possible that reported findings do not include all risks experienced by participants in research with wearable cameras, our findings suggest a low level of risk to participants. However, it is important that investigators adopt recommended precautions, which can promote autonomy and reduce risks, including participant discomfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"18 1","pages":"64-83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307222/pdf/nihms-1761547.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10464412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Personalising the dilemma: research ethics in fiction","authors":"S. Dalton-Brown","doi":"10.1177/17470161211066445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211066445","url":null,"abstract":"Learning about research ethics and research integrity is greatly facilitated by case studies, which illuminate, ground and personalise abstract questions. This paper argues that fiction can provide similar learning experiences, incarnating ethical dilemmas through a medium that is highly accessible yet sophisticated in its depictions of how researchers behave. Examples of fictional illustrations are given to illustrate various themes such as animal experimentation, exploitation of the vulnerable, researcher bias and research fraud.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"114 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79943234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial for Hepatitis C Virus investigational therapy in pregnancy","authors":"Y. Kislovskiy, C. Chappell, Emily Flaherty, M. Hamm, F. de Abril Cameron, E. Krans, Judy C. Chang","doi":"10.1177/17470161211066159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211066159","url":null,"abstract":"Limited research has been done among pregnant people participating in investigational drug trials. To enhance the ethical understanding of pregnant people’s perspectives on research participation, we sought to describe motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) treatment for chronic Hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy. Pregnant people with chronic HCV infection enrolled in an open-label, phase 1 study of LDV/SOF participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their reasons for participation and experiences within the study. Pregnant people took 12 weeks of LDV/SOF and were interviewed at enrollment and at the end of study. We recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, coded them using NVivo software, and performed inductive thematic analysis. Nine women completed the study yielding 18 interview transcripts. We identified two themes regarding motives and one regarding risk perception. Motives—(1) Women conceptualized study participation as part of the caregiving role they associate with motherhood; participating was viewed as an act of caregiving for their infants, their families, themselves, and other pregnant women with chronic HCV. (2) Women also noted that they faced multiple barriers to treatment prior to pregnancy that created a desire to receive therapy through trial participation. Risk perception—(3) Women acknowledged personal and fetal risk associated with participation. Acceptance of risk was influenced by women’s concepts of motherhood, preexisting knowledge of HCV and medical research, family members, intimate partners, or by the study design. Women enrolled in a phase 1 trial for chronic HCV therapy during pregnancy acknowledged risks of participation and were motivated by hopes for fetal and personal benefit and by lack of prenatal access to treatment. Ethical inclusion of pregnant people in research should acknowledge structural factors that contribute to vulnerability and data deficiencies for treatment in pregnancy.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"39 1","pages":"132 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86870016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Waving away waivers: an obligation to contribute to ‘herd knowledge’ for data linkage research?","authors":"Owen M. Bradfield","doi":"10.1177/17470161211058311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211058311","url":null,"abstract":"In today’s online data-driven world, people constantly shed data and deposit digital footprints. When individuals access health services, governments and health providers collect and store large volumes of health information about people that can later be retrieved, linked and analysed for research purposes. This can lead to new discoveries in medicine and healthcare. In addition, when securely stored and de-identified, the privacy risks are minimal and manageable. In many jurisdictions, ethics committees routinely waive the requirement for researchers to obtain consent from data subjects before using and linking these datasets in an effort to balance respect for individuals with research efficiency. In this paper, I explore the ethical justification for using routinely collected health data for research without consent. I conclude that, not only is this morally justified but also that data subjects have a moral obligation to contribute their data to such research, which would obviate the need for ethics committees to consider consent waivers. In justifying this argument, I look to the duty of easy rescue, distributive justice and draw analogies with vaccination ethics.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"12 1","pages":"151 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85583517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Equality and Equity in Compensating Patient Engagement in Research: A Plea for Exceptionalism","authors":"J. Bélisle-Pipon, V. Couture, Marie-Christine Roy","doi":"10.1177/17470161211059993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211059993","url":null,"abstract":"Engaging citizens and patients in research has become a truism in many fields of health research. It is now seen as a laudable—if not compulsory—activity in research for yielding more impactful and meaningful citizen/patient outcomes and steering research in the right direction. Although this research approach is increasingly common and commendable, we recently encountered a major obstacle in obtaining an ethics certificate from an institutional review board (IRB) to conduct a study that places citizen/patient perspectives on equal footing with those of academic/policy experts. The obstacle was the interpretation of fairness in terms of compensation for research participation (i.e. honoraria). In terms of research ethics, this raised an important question: Should all types of participants be compensated equally, or should exceptions be made for citizen/patient participants? We argue that there are good reasons for exceptionalism and that clearer guidance on citizen/patient engagement in research should be embedded into research ethics doctrine.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"30 1","pages":"126 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78981481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Can research ethics codes be a conduit for justice? An examination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander guidelines in Australia","authors":"D. Zion, Richard Matthews","doi":"10.1177/17470161211053199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211053199","url":null,"abstract":"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia, have historically experienced research as another means of colonialization and oppression. Although there are existing frameworks, guidelines and policies in place that respond to this history, the risk of exploitation and oppression arising from research still raises challenging ethical questions. Since the 1990s the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia has developed specific sets of guidelines that govern research with these populations in an attempt to redress injustices of the past. The current guidelines: Ethical Conduct in Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities: Guidelines for Researchers and Stakeholders, 2018, emphasis six core values which are bound together by “spirit and integrity.” The values are reflected through respect for cultural inheritance, and genuine negotiation of partnerships between researchers, other stakeholders, and communities. We examine whether these guidelines can lead to research and research practices that redress some of the ongoing traumas of colonialization and racism. We draw upon Margaret Urban Walker’s formulation of restorative justice, based upon her “pragmatics of repair” which relies upon “voice, validation and vindication” and at its core, the restoration of relationships.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"39 1","pages":"51 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88905022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Navigating conflict between research ethics and online platform terms and conditions: a reflective account","authors":"S. Chua","doi":"10.1177/17470161211045526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211045526","url":null,"abstract":"Internet users’ comments in online spaces have attracted researchers’ attention in recent years. Although this data is typically publicly available, its use requires careful consideration so as to not cause harm to the users, while complying with the terms and conditions (Ts & Cs) of the online spaces. However, the Ts & Cs and researchers’ ethical considerations may sometimes be in conflict. I faced such a conflict when I conducted discourse analysis of online discussions that were sourced from a public online learning platform owned by a private company. In this article, I reflect on how I navigated the Ts & Cs and copyright law, taking users’ likely expectations into consideration when deciding whether to seek informed consent and anonymize content. I employed an ‘attribution with anonymization’ method to acknowledge users for their comments while safeguarding their confidentiality. Given the variety of online spaces and research methods, ethical decision-making must be a contextualized process that requires researchers to consider the nature of the online platform and the potential experience of the users, rather than simply following guidelines or Ts & Cs.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"33 1","pages":"39 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89853643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication","authors":"A. Hoffman","doi":"10.1177/17470161211051230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211051230","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the traditional peer review process (TPR) is to provide a more constructive and scientifically rigorous critical review of scholarly research that builds scientific rigor and validity within diverse academic disciplines. Peer review has received criticism as the demand for publications in a variety of competitive journals has significantly increased while the number of individuals who are both willing and qualified to conduct thorough reviews is significantly declining. The purpose of this topic piece is to examine the overall efficacy of the peer review process and provide recommendations toward a more collaborative, transparent (i.e. “open”), and interdisciplinary communication process.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"84 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83468817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CORRIGENDUM to “Unconsented acknowledgments as a form of authorship abuse: What can be done about it?”","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/17470161211037906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211037906","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"40 1","pages":"522 - 522"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87745534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}