journal
MENU ▼
Read by QxMD icon Read
search

Accountability in Research

journal
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29291621/researchers-interpretations-of-research-integrity-a-qualitative-study
#1
David Shaw, Priya Satalkar
Despite increasing interest in integrity issues, relatively few studies have examined researchers' own interpretations of integrity. As part of the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) project, we sought to explore how researchers themselves define research integrity. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clinical and laboratory-based researchers from across Switzerland. Data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and illustrative quotes were selected. Researchers defined integrity in terms of honesty, transparency, and objectivity, and generally stressed the importance of sticking to the research question and avoiding bias in data interpretation...
January 1, 2018: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29172701/the-protection-of-unrepresented-patients-in-emergency-care-research
#2
Linus Broström, Mats Johansson
In emergency care research, it may be the case that neither informed consent nor surrogate consent is possible. In order to nonetheless allow for such research, codes and regulations of research ethics have increasingly incorporated provisions regarding this specific situation. The protection that those provisions offer need to be better understood. This article addresses in what ways they protect individuals, and especially the extent to which the suggested protection compensates for the loss of surrogate consent...
November 27, 2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29172685/attempts-to-redefine-conflicts-of-interest
#3
Marc A Rodwin
The traditional legal concept of conflict of interest is a practical tool to regulate conduct. In recent years several medical authors have defined conflicts of interest in ways that stray from its original legal meaning. The new definitions cause conceptual confusion and will result in policies that cannot be implemented effectively. We should not follow recent attempts to redefine conflicts of interest because doing so deviates from the legal concept and will lead to deregulation of financial conflicts and overregulation of so-called intellectual conflicts...
November 27, 2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29140730/clarifying-the-concept-social-in-risk-assessments-for-human-subjects-research
#4
Sara R Jordan, Phillip W Gray
International guidelines for the conduct of research with human participants, such as those put forth by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS, 2002), recommend that research review committees account for social risk and benefits to society in their review of proposed research. What do the concepts "social" and "society" mean in the context of the review of human participants research? Here we analyze concepts of social and society to define the terms: social harm, social risk, social benefit, and benefits to society...
November 15, 2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29258356/grave-fraudulence-in-medical-device-research-a-narrative-review-of-the-pin-seeding-study-for-the-pinnacle-hip-system
#5
Joan E Steffen, Ella A Fassler, Kevin J Reardon, David S Egilman
In 2001, DePuy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J/DePuy), initiated a seeding study called the "Multi-center, Prospective, Clinical Evaluation of Pinnacle Acetabular Implants in Total Hip Arthroplasty" (PIN Study). J&J/DePuy designed this study to develop new business opportunities during the launch of their Pinnacle Hip System (PHS) and generate survivorship data for marketing. This article, the first review of a seeding trial for a medical device, examines internal company documents relating to the PIN Study; the analysis herein focuses on the integrity of J&J/DePuy's research practices in conception, implementation, and analysis...
2018: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28481648/data-intensive-science-and-research-integrity
#6
David B Resnik, Kevin C Elliott, Patricia A Soranno, Elise M Smith
In this commentary, we consider questions related to research integrity in data-intensive science and argue that there is no need to create a distinct category of misconduct that applies to deception related to processing, analyzing, or interpreting data. The best way to promote integrity in data-intensive science is to maintain a firm commitment to epistemological and ethical values, such as honesty, openness, transparency, and objectivity, which apply to all types of research, and to promote education, policy development, and scholarly debate concerning appropriate uses of statistics...
May 8, 2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28128975/best-practice-to-order-authors-in-multi-interdisciplinary-health-sciences-research-publications
#7
Elise Smith, Zubin Master
Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems) while other wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using "contributorship"-a system based on authors' self-reporting contributions...
January 27, 2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29140743/research-ethics-review-for-the-use-of-anonymized-samples-and-data-a-systematic-review-of-normative-documents
#8
Amicia Phillips, Pascal Borry, Mahsa Shabani
While the anonymization of biological samples and data may help protect participant privacy, there is still debate over whether this alone is a sufficient safeguard to ensure the ethical conduct of research. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether the review of an ethics committee is necessary in the context of anonymized research, and what the considerations in said ethics review would be. The review of normative documents issued by both national and international level organizations reveals a growing concern over the ability of anonymization procedures to prevent against reidentification...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29140742/the-poor-availability-of-syntaxes-of-structural-equation-modeling
#9
Jelte M Wicherts, Elise A V Crompvoets
The syntax or codes used to fit Structural Equation Models (SEMs) convey valuable information on model specifications and the manner in which SEMs are estimated. We requested SEM syntaxes from a random sample of 229 articles (published in 1998-2013) that ran SEMs using LISREL, AMOS, or Mplus. After exchanging over 500 emails, we ended up obtaining a meagre 57 syntaxes used in these articles (24.9% of syntaxes we requested). Results considering the 129 (corresponding) authors who replied to our request showed that the odds of the syntax being lost increased by 21% per year passed since publication of the article, while the odds of actually obtaining a syntax dropped by 13% per year...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29106296/what-is-recklessness-in-scientific-research-the-frank-sauer-case
#10
David B Resnik, Elise M Smith, Stefanie H Chen, Carlos Goller
On May 22, 2017, administrative law Judge Leslie Rogall of the Department of Health and Human Services' Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, ruled in favor of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) concerning its decision to charge former University of California at Riverside biochemistry professor Frank Sauer with research misconduct for fabricating or falsifying digital image data included in three papers and seven grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. More specifically, Sauer was deemed responsible for manipulating, reusing, and falsely labeling images of autoradiograms and gels in his research in epigenetics...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29087734/malaysian-researchers-talk-about-the-influence-of-culture-on-research-misconduct-in-higher-learning-institutions
#11
Angelina P Olesen, Latifah Amin, Zurina Mahadi
Based on a previous survey by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the USA, a considerable number of foreign research scientists have been found guilty of research misconduct. However, it remains unclear as to whether or not cultural factors really contribute to research misconduct. This study is based on a series of interviews with Malaysian researchers from the local universities regarding their own professional experiences involving working with researchers or research students from different countries or of different nationalities...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29083932/conflict-of-interest-reporting-in-biomedical-journals-published-in-china
#12
Lili Yang, Panzhi Wang, Rongwang Yang
This study aimed to investigate the current status and policy of Conflict of interest (COI) reporting in biomedical journals in China. Thirty Chinese-language medical journals and 37 English-language biomedical journals indexed by Journal Citation Reports categories were included into this study. These 67 journals were all published in China. All articles published in the most recent two issues were checked for identifying the disclosure statement in the text or not. Twenty-one of 30 (70%) Chinese-language journals required a disclosure of author's potential COI...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/29035082/all-for-one-or-one-for-all-authorship-and-the-cross-sectoral-valuation-of-credit-in-nutrition-science
#13
Bart Penders
The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of authorship practices among nutrition scientists employed at universities, contract research organizations, and in food industry, I argue that two different modi operandi emerge when it comes to authorship...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28777661/minimal-risk-in-pediatric-research-a-philosophical-review-and-reconsideration
#14
John Rossi, Robert M Nelson
Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of "minimal risk" and a "minor increase over minimal risk." Focusing primarily on the definition of "minimal risk," we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting "minimal risk"-defining it as a specific set of risks-is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28767279/the-inappropriate-use-of-risk-benefit-analysis-in-the-risk-assessment-of-experimental-trauma-focused-research
#15
William Affleck
A large body of research has explored the impact of questioning participants about traumatic experiences. To determine the level of risk, these studies have relied, to various degrees, upon a risk-benefit calculus, whereby risks are weighed against the benefits that an individual can receive from participating. In the case of trauma-focused studies this approach is erroneous. The procedures involved in trauma-focused studies do not meet the criteria to be considered therapeutic, and the benefits associated with these procedures do not carry the moral weight to offset risk...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28745950/declaring-conflict-of-interest-current-state-of-affairs-in-the-ophthalmic-literature
#16
Jamie Lea Schaefer, Noemie Aubert Bonn, Geert Craenen
The importance of transparency with financial ties in biomedical research is widely recognized, and most peer-reviewed journals require declarations of Conflicts of Interest (COI). Nonetheless, variability in the consistency of declarations of COI has been sparsely assessed. To assess consistency and rates of COI declarations in the ophthalmic literature and the effectiveness of journal COI policies. We analyzed consistency and completeness of declaration of COI in the ophthalmic literature and compared the levels of completeness to specific journal requirements...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28686038/fate-of-articles-and-authors-with-approved-plagiarism-after-a-10-year-period-cases-from-international-pubmed-indexed-journals-in-thailand-and-reflection-on-responsibility
#17
COMMENT
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28644679/success-of-university-student-volunteers-in-obtaining-consent-for-reviewing-private-health-information-for-emergency-research
#18
Adam I Kramer, Elizabeth Stephenson, Adam Betel, Johanna Crudden, Kathy Boutis
This study aimed to determine the success of university student volunteers in obtaining consent from parents to allow review of their child's personal health information (PHI) for emergency research screening. This study also aimed to examine the variables associated with successful consent. This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted at a pediatric emergency department (ED). University students, who functioned as delegates of the health information custodian, approached parents for consent. Of 2,506 parents, 1,852 (73...
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28548866/fostering-research-integrity
#19
David B Resnik, Adil E Shamoo
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
2017: Accountability in Research
https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28481674/both-whistleblowers-and-the-scientists-they-accuse-are-vulnerable-and-deserve-protection
#20
Lex M Bouter, Sven Hendrix
Whistleblowers play an important role diagnosing research misconduct, but often experience severe negative consequences. That is also true for incorrectly accused scientists. Both categories are vulnerable and deserve protection. Whistleblowers must proceed carefully and cautiously. Anonymous whistleblowing should be discouraged but cannot be ignored when the allegations are specific, serious, and plausible. When accused of a breach of research integrity it is important to be as transparent as possible. Sometimes accusations are false in the sense that the accuser knows or should know that the allegations are untrue...
2017: Accountability in Research
journal
journal
30610
1
2
Fetch more papers »
Fetching more papers... Fetching...
Read by QxMD. Sign in or create an account to discover new knowledge that matter to you.
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"