Linda Brubaker, Jesse Nodora, Tamara Bavendam, John Connett, Amy M Claussen, Cora E Lewis, Kyle Rudser, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jean F Wyman, Janis M Miller
{"title":"A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia.","authors":"Linda Brubaker, Jesse Nodora, Tamara Bavendam, John Connett, Amy M Claussen, Cora E Lewis, Kyle Rudser, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jean F Wyman, Janis M Miller","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2116318","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2116318","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Authorship and dissemination policies vary across NIH research consortia. We aimed to describe elements of real-life policies in use by eligible U01 clinical research consortia. Principal investigators of eligible, active U01 clinical research projects identified in the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database shared relevant policies. The characteristics of key policy elements, determined a priori, were reviewed and quantified, when appropriate. Twenty one of 81 research projects met search criteria and provided policies. K elements (e.g., in quotations): \"manuscript proposals reviewed and approved by committee\" (90%); \"guidelines for acknowledgements\" (86%); \"writing team formation\" (71%); \"process for final manuscript review and approval\" (71%), \"responsibilities for lead author\" (67%), \"guidelines for other types of publications\" (67%); \"draft manuscript review and approval\" (62%); \"recommendation for number of members per consortium site\" (57%); and \"requirement to identify individual contributions in the manuscript\" (19%). Authorship/dissemination policies for large team science research projects are highly variable. Creation of an NIH policies repository and accompanying toolkit with model language and recommended key elements could improve comprehensiveness, ethical integrity, and efficiency in team science work while reducing burden and cost on newly funded consortia and directing time and resources to scientific endeavors.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975116/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9502988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Noor Lide Abu Kassim, Siti Khairunnisa Mohd Bakri, Fariha Nusrat, Elnaz Salim, Muhammad Manjurul Karim, Mohammad Tariqur Rahman
{"title":"Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia.","authors":"Noor Lide Abu Kassim, Siti Khairunnisa Mohd Bakri, Fariha Nusrat, Elnaz Salim, Muhammad Manjurul Karim, Mohammad Tariqur Rahman","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2094256","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2094256","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the \"publish or perish policy\" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40403834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Assessment of the knowledge and attitudes of the Iranian medical faculty toward plagiarism.","authors":"Saleheh Tajalli, Roqayeh Aliyari, Ashghali Farahani Mansoureh, Fatemeh Heydari, Sanaz Motefakker, Azam Shirinabadi Farahani","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2083961","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2083961","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study is among the few investigations that assesses knowledge and attitudes of faculty members of medical sciences universities regarding plagiarism. This investigation focused on the relationship between personal factors and knowledge and attitudes toward plagiarism among Iranian faculty members of medical sciences affiliated with the Ministry of Health. This descriptive cross-sectional study was performed on 247 participants using demographic questionnaires that collected data on attitudes toward plagiarism and knowledge of plagiarism. The questionnaires were uploaded on Porsline. The subjects were provided with the purpose of the study, informed consent, and the link to the questionnaire through WhatsApp. The mean scores of knowledge variables and different domains of attitude were calculated, and then, the obtained averages were compared in terms of age, gender, and participation in ethics workshop using univariate tests. Finally, the MANCOVA was used considering five dimensions of the questionnaire to assess attitude, as multiple response variables, and independent variables, including gender and participation in the ethics workshop and control of knowledge and age. The mean age of the subjects in this study was 38.9 ± 8.4. 79.4% of the participants were women. Overall, 79.8% of people participated in ethics workshops, of whom 78% were women, and 86.5% were men. The mean score of knowledge in men and women was 1.35 ± 0.19 and 1.56. ± 0.24, respectively, which was higher in women than men (PV <0.001). The mean score of total attitudes was 3.19 ± 0.46. There was a high level of knowledge of plagiarism and positive attitudes toward plagiarism avoidance or prevention among participants in this study, which may spread to students, and help to promote integrity in the educational and clinical environment in Iran.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47610165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity.","authors":"Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell, Mark J Bolland","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2112572","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2112572","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Expressions of concern (EoC) can reduce the adverse effects of unreliable publications by alerting readers to concerns about publication integrity while assessment is undertaken. We investigated the use of EoC for 463 publications by two research groups for which we notified concerns about publication integrity to 142 journals and 44 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By December 2021, 95 papers had had an EoC, and 83 were retracted without an EoC. Median times from notification of concerns to EoC (10.4mo) or retraction without EoC (13.1mo) were similar. Among the 95 EoCs, 29 (30.5%) were followed by retraction after a median of 5.4mo, none was lifted, and 66 (69.5%) remained in place after a median of 18.1mo. Publishers with >10 notified publications issued EoCs for 0-81.8% of papers: for several publishers the proportions of notified papers for which EoCs were issued varied considerably between the 2 research groups. EoCs were issued for >30% of notified publications of randomized clinical trials and letters to the editor, and <20% of other types of research. These results demonstrate inconsistent application of EoCs between and within publishers, and prolonged times to issue and resolve EoCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9344381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elisabeth Hildt, Kelly Laas, Christine Z Miller, Stephanie Taylor
{"title":"Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study.","authors":"Elisabeth Hildt, Kelly Laas, Christine Z Miller, Stephanie Taylor","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2109018","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2109018","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we present the results of 30 ethnographic interviews in which we asked STEM graduate and undergraduate students at a Midwest university in the United States about topics related to the culture of their research group, how group members communicate and interact, and their experience with ethical issues that arise within the laboratory. Here we focus on the culture of research laboratories and describe the key categories that emerged through analysis, including communication, community structure, governance, and collaboration that influence and shape lab culture. We also consider the critical role of the principal investigator (PI) to influence conditions in the lab that facilitate or inhibit lab culture and the subsequent effects on student feelings and behaviors, interpersonal communication, collaboration, work output, and ethics. Our findings suggest that the quality of research and the wellbeing of the lab members depend not only on purely scientific factors and routine research practices but are also dependent on the culture of the lab as it manifests in interpersonal relationships. The interviews reveal the critical role students ascribe to the PI in shaping the lab culture. Based on this study, we suggest how ethical lab cultures might be encouraged.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40591928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A practitioner-centered policy roadmap for ethical computational social science in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.","authors":"Seliem El-Sayed","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2420811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2420811","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Computational Social Science (CSS) utilizes large digital datasets and computational methods to study human behavior, raising ethical concerns about data privacy, informed consent, and potential misuse.<b>Methods:</b> This study employs a constructivist grounded theory approach, analyzing 15 in-depth interviews with CSS practitioners in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. These countries share a European legal context regarding data privacy and hereby provide a comparable regulatory environment for examining ethical considerations.<b>Results:</b> Findings highlight key challenges in CSS research, including power imbalances with data providers, uncertainties around surveillance and data privacy (especially with longitudinal data), and limitations of current ethics frameworks. Researchers face tensions between established ethical principles and practical realities, often feeling disempowered and lacking support from ethics boards due to their limited CSS expertise. Regulatory ambiguity further discourages research due to fear of sanctions.<b>Conclusions:</b> To foster responsible CSS practices, this paper recommends establishing specialized ethics boards with CSS expertise. It also advocates for acknowledging CSS's unique nature in research policy by developing tailored data guidelines and providing legal certainty through clear guidelines. Grounding recommendations in practitioners' experiences, this study offers actionable steps to help enable ethical CSS research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142577169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Allowing AI co-authors is a disregard for humanization.","authors":"Aorigele Bao, Yi Zeng","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2420812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2420812","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In this paper, we explore the question \"Why can't AI be a coauthor?\" and reveal a rarely discussed reason.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>First, allowing AI to be a coauthor disregards the uniquely human experience of writing texts. This means that human authors are seen as mere producers of texts rather than rational beings engaged in a value-added and humanized learning process expressed through the paper. The relationship between the human author and the thesis is reduced to a mere result of generation rather than a result of individual human critical thinking. Second, allowing AI to be a coauthor leads to self-delusion about one's own rationality and thus violates the responsibility to understand the world correctly. In this process of self-deception, it is not as if those who grant AI coauthor status do not realize that AI is not the same as humans; however, they self-deceivingly assume that AI has the same internal state as humans. This means that the relationship between the author and the work is no longer seen as a position to be respected, but as something probabilistic and gamified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Finally, we discuss the potential consequences of these rationales, concluding that including AI as a coauthor implies a disregard for humanization.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142569846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"'I don't believe in the neutrality of research. OK?' Mapping researchers' attitudes toward values in science.","authors":"Jacopo Ambrosj, Hugh Desmond, Kris Dierickx","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Codes of conduct for research integrity provide ambivalent guidance on the role that the values of society as well as political and economic interests can or should play in scientific research. The development of clearer guidance on this matter in the future should consider the attitudes of researchers.<b>Methods</b>: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with holders of grants from the European Research Council and performed an inductive thematic analysis thereof.<b>Results</b>: We developed 4 themes reflecting 4 main attitudes of researchers toward the interactions between values and science: <i>awareness</i>, <i>concern</i>, <i>confidence</i>, and <i>embracement</i>. While interviewees recognized that science is not completely value-free (<i>awareness</i>), they still seemed to hold on to the so-called value-free ideal of science as a professional norm to minimize bias (<i>concern</i>, <i>confidence</i>). However, they showed awareness of the beneficial influence that values like diversity can have on research (<i>embracement</i>).<b>Conclusions</b>: Codes such as the <i>European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity</i> tend not to problematize the tensions that emerge from having the value-free ideal of science as a norm and being guided by the values of society. Our findings suggest the time might be ripe for research integrity codes to address more directly the value issues intrinsic to science.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142565095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum.","authors":"Lex Bouter","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2185141","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2185141","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research data mismanagement (RDMM) is a serious threat to accountability, reproducibility, and re-use of data. In a recent article in this journal, it was argued that RDMM can take two forms: intentional research misconduct or unintentional questionable research practice (QRP). I disagree because the scale for severity of consequences of research misbehavior is not bimodal. Furthermore, intentionality is difficult to prove beyond doubt and is only one of many criteria that should be taken into account when deciding on the severity of a breach of research integrity and whether a sanction is justified. Making a distinction between RDMM that is research misconduct and RDMM which not puts too much emphasis on intentionality and sanctioning. The focus should rather be on improving data management practices by preventive actions, in which research institutions should take a leading role.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9385920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Letter to editor: Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers.","authors":"Gengyan Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2180359","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2180359","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This letter to the editor argues that if academic journals are willing to accept papers that include NLP-generated content under certain conditions, editorial policies should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in the paper. Excessive use of NLP-generated content should be considered as academic misconduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10757342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}