Read by QxMD icon Read

Accountability in Research

Alain Braillon
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
May 21, 2018: Accountability in Research
Dan Li, Gustaaf Cornelis
China has achieved a dramatic development in scientific research over the last few decades. However, just like many other countries, it has also seen a surge of scientific misconducts. With its expansion of international publications, retractions due to suspected research misconduct are also on the rise. A transcultural case study was conducted by investigating the perception of research misbehaviors by Chinese researchers compared to their Belgian Flemish colleagues. The study was designed to find out variation in research practices in different countries and to see how research was shaped and influenced by cultural contexts...
2018: Accountability in Research
Debra M Parrish
Federal agencies can do more to ensure the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature including providing timely notice of misconduct findings or admissions regarding published articles, requiring the individual found guilty of misconduct to provide notice to affected journals, and to work with the journals and co-authors on making appropriate correction. The case of Andrew Cullinane underscores weakness in the current U.S. government administrative processes and the negative impact on journals.
2018: Accountability in Research
David B Resnik, Elise M Smith, Min Shi
One of the most significant changes to the Common Rule is the requirement that institutions use a single Institutional Review Board (IRB) for cooperative research in the United States, unless more than one IRB is required by state, local, or tribal law, or a signatory federal agency decides an exception is warranted. We surveyed Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) officials at the top U.S. research institutions to understand their knowledge and opinion of the mandate, what steps their institutions are taking, and difficulties their institutions are facing...
2018: Accountability in Research
Priya Satalkar, David Shaw
This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity...
2018: Accountability in Research
Rinche Shaw, Michael Ni, Michal Pillar, Aaron M Tejani
INTRODUCTION: In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed that all submitted trials in all 11 member journals must be prospectively registered in order to be considered for publication. Registering drug trials was meant to reduce the likelihood of selective reporting. The aim was to determine the proportion of antipsychotic and antidepressant trials that were registered. METHODS: We searched in Pubmed for all randomized controlled trials of any antidepressant or antipsychotic published between July and December 2014...
2018: Accountability in Research
Søren Holm, Bjørn Hofmann
We investigate the relationship between doctoral students' attitudes towards scientific misconduct and their self-reported behavior. 203 questionnaires were distributed to doctoral candidates at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo 2016/2017. The response rate was 74%. The results show a correlation between attitudes towards misconduct and self-reported problematic behaviors among doctoral students in biomedicine. The four most common reported misbehaviors are adding author(s) who did not qualify for authorship (17...
2018: Accountability in Research
Bor Luen Tang
Important and potentially useful findings in the sciences are under more intense public scrutiny now more than ever. Other researchers in the field dive into replicating and expanding the findings while the media swamps the community and the public with peripheral reporting and analyses. How should authors and the hosting/funding institutions respond when other workers in the field could not reproduce or replicate their published results? To illustrate the importance of author-initiated and institution-driven investigations in response to outcries of research irreproducibility, I draw on comparisons between three recent and well-publicized cases in the life sciences: betatrophin, Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) cells, and Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute (NgAgo)...
2018: Accountability in Research
Ana Quevedo, Cecilia Condo, Gilda Valenzuela, Lucy Molina, Eduardo Castillo, Ana Palacio, Denisse Pareja, Guillermo Prado, Yannine Estrada, Maria Rosa Velazquez, Leonardo Tamariz
The informed consent comprehension process is key to engaging potential research subject participation. The aim of this study is to compare informed consent comprehension between two methods: standard and video-delivered. We compared the in-person and video-delivered informed consent process in the Familias Unidas intervention. We evaluated comprehension using a 7-item true/false questionnaire. There were a total of 152 participants in the control group and 87 in the experimental. General characteristics were similar between both groups (p > 0...
2018: Accountability in Research
Ivan Buljan, Lana Barać, Ana Marušić
The aim of our study has been to use a qualitative approach to explore the potential motivations and drivers for unethical behaviors in biomedicine and determine the role of institutions regarding those issues in a small scientific community setting. Three focus groups were held---two with doctoral students and one with active senior researchers. Purposive sampling was used to reach participants at different stages of their scientific careers. Participants in all three focus groups were asked the same questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of ethical/unethical scientists, ethical climate, role, and responsibility of institutions; they were also asked to suggest ways to improve research integrity...
2018: Accountability in Research
Bor Luen Tang
Moffatt argues that the "plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship" necessitates caution in attempts to identify unethical authorship practices, and urges that considerations be given to establishing a "single consensus account of authorship." The revised International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria do capture the essential features of authorship in terms of "intellectual contribution" and "responsibility and accountability," which would clearly demarcate academically legitimate authorship from the common misdemeanors of ghost writing and honorary authorship...
2018: Accountability in Research
Toshio Kuroki, Akira Ukawa
Both the scientific community and the general public have expressed concern over scientific misconduct. The number of retracted articles has increased dramatically over the past 20 years and now comprises about .02% of the 2 million articles published each year. Retraction of publications available in large public databases can be analyzed as an objective measure for scientific misconduct and errors. In this project, we analyzed retractions of scientific publications using the Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases...
2018: Accountability in Research
Christian J Wiedermann
Published articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered reliable due to honest error, publication misconduct, or research misconduct. This article focuses on the case of a single serial violator of research and publication ethics in anesthesiology and critical care, which is widely publicized. A chain of events led to detection of misconduct that had substantial impact on the evidence base for the safety of hydroxyethyl starch, an intravenous artificial colloid solution, which is reflected in current guidelines on fluid management and volume resuscitation...
2018: Accountability in Research
M Ariel Cascio, Eric Racine
Research ethics is often understood by researchers primarily through the regulatory framework reflected in the research ethics review process. This regulatory understanding does not encompass the range of ethical considerations in research, notably those associated with the relational and everyday aspects of human subject research. In order to support researchers in their effort to adopt a broader lens, this article presents a "person-oriented research ethics" approach. Five practical guideposts of person-oriented research ethics are identified, as follows: (1) respect for holistic personhood; (2) acknowledgement of lived world; (3) individualization; (4) focus on researcher-participant relationships; and (5) empowerment in decision-making...
2018: Accountability in Research
Barton Moffatt
In this article, I argue that understanding authorship requires that we grapple with the plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship. As a result, we should be careful in how we identify and quantify unethical practices such as ghostwriting. Judgements about who should be able to decide who is an author raise interesting questions about the autonomy of scientific practices.
2018: Accountability in Research
Moataz Ehab Mohamed, Nagla Mohy, Sarah Salah
The survey aimed to capture the perceptions of undergraduate pharmacy students towards plagiarism in three major public universities in Cairo, Egypt: Helwan, Ain-Shams, and Cairo Universities. This was a paper-based self-administrated survey study. The questionnaire was validated by both content and face validation. The final survey form captured the knowledge of the students on plagiarism in terms of definitions, attitudes, and practices. Four hundred and fourteen students, 320 females and 94 males, participated in the study...
2018: Accountability in Research
Susanne Hall, Cary Moskovitz, Michael A Pemberton
Text recycling, the reuse of material from one's own previously published writing in a new text without attribution, is a common academic writing practice that is not yet well understood. While some studies of text recycling in academic writing have been published, no previous study has focused on scholars' attitudes toward text recycling. This article presents results from a survey of over 300 journal editors and editorial board members from 86 top English-language journals in 16 different academic fields regarding text recycling in scholarly articles...
2018: Accountability in Research
Angelina Patrick Olesen, Latifah Amin, Zurina Mahadi
This article offers a qualitative analysis of research misconduct witnessed by researchers during their careers, either by research students or fellow researchers, when conducting or supervising research in their respective departments. Interviews were conducted with 21 participants from various research backgrounds and with a range of research experience, from selected universities in Malaysia. Our study found that misbehavior such as manipulating research data, misrepresentation of research outcomes, plagiarism, authorship disputes, breaching of research protocols, and unethical research management was witnessed by participants among junior and senior researchers, albeit for different reasons...
2018: Accountability in Research
María Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón, Pere Godoy, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Miguel Ángel Negrín, Carmen Vives-Cases, Carlos Álvarez-Dardet, Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo, María José López, Glòria Pérez, Carme Borrell
Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review...
2018: Accountability in Research
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...
2018: Accountability in Research
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"