Read by QxMD icon Read

Accountability in Research

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...
August 4, 2017: Accountability in Research
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...
August 2, 2017: Accountability in Research
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...
July 26, 2017: Accountability in Research
Beuy Joob, Viroj Wiwanitkit
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
July 7, 2017: Accountability in Research
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
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
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
David B Resnik, Adil E Shamoo
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
2017: Accountability in Research
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
E Michelle Todd, Brett S Torrence, Logan L Watts, Tyler J Mulhearn, Shane Connelly, Michael D Mumford
In order to delineate best practices for courses on research ethics, the goal of the present effort was to identify themes related to instructional methods reflected in effective research ethics and responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses. By utilizing a qualitative review, four themes relevant to instructional methods were identified in effective research ethics courses: active participation, case-based activities, a combination of individual and group approaches, and a small number of instructional methods...
2017: Accountability in Research
Sheldon Krimsky
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
2017: Accountability in Research
Renée Llanusa-Cestero
In 2010, in an article in this journal, I argued that declassified documents implicated Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) physicians in the conduct of unethical research on enhanced interrogation using detainee subjects. The focus, then as now, is upon physicians at the Office of Medical Services (OMS). The 2010 article highlighted the heavily redacted "Draft OMS Guidelines on Medical and Psychological Support to Detainee Interrogations" (the Draft). This commentary focuses upon the recently declassified final version of that document revealing further culpable evidence of unethical human subject research...
2017: Accountability in Research
(no author information available yet)
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
2017: Accountability in Research
Brett S Torrence, Logan L Watts, Tyler J Mulhearn, Megan R Turner, E Michelle Todd, Michael D Mumford, Shane Connelly
Over the past decade, the effectiveness of ethics education programs has increased with regard to trainee outcomes, such as knowledge, awareness, and ethical decision making. However, despite the overall improvement in training effectiveness, considerable variability still exists across programs. One potential source of variability arises from the substantial range in instructional training content utilized across ethics training courses. The goal of the present effort was to clarify which approaches in ethics education result in positive training outcomes through the identification of instructional content themes...
2017: Accountability in Research
Line Edslev Andersen
For the past three decades, peer review practices have received much attention in the literature. But although this literature covers many research fields, only one previous systematic study has been devoted to the practice of peer review in mathematics, namely a study by Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove from 2010. This lack of attention may be due to a view that peer review in mathematics is more reliable, and therefore less interesting as an object of study, than peer review in other fields. In fact, Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove argue that peer review in mathematics is relatively reliable...
2017: Accountability in Research
Gregor Scherzinger, Monika Bobbert
Repeatedly, adequacy, performance and quality of Ethics Committees that oversee medical research trials are being discussed. Although they play a crucial role in reviewing medical research and protecting human subjects, it is far from clear to what degree they fulfill the task they have been assigned to. This eventuates in the call for an evaluation of their activity and, in some places, led to the establishment of accreditation schemes. At the same time, IRBs have become subject of detailed legislation in the process of the ongoing global juridification of medical research...
2017: Accountability in Research
Coosje L S Veldkamp, Chris H J Hartgerink, Marcel A L M van Assen, Jelte M Wicherts
Do lay people and scientists themselves recognize that scientists are human and therefore prone to human fallibilities such as error, bias, and even dishonesty? In a series of three experimental studies and one correlational study (total N = 3,278) we found that the "storybook image of the scientist" is pervasive: American lay people and scientists from over 60 countries attributed considerably more objectivity, rationality, open-mindedness, intelligence, integrity, and communality to scientists than to other highly-educated people...
2017: Accountability in Research
Lisa Cosgrove, Sheldon Krimsky, Emily E Wheeler, Shannon M Peters, Madeline Brodt, Allen F Shaughnessy
Because of increased attention to the issue of trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines, it may be that both transparency and management of industry associations of guideline development groups (GDGs) have improved. The purpose of the present study was to assess a) the disclosure requirements of GDGs in a cross-section of guidelines for major depression; and, b) the extent and type of conflicts of panel members. Treatment guidelines for major depression were identified and searched for conflict of interest policies and disclosure statements...
2017: Accountability in Research
David B Resnik, Adil E Shamoo
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
2017: Accountability in Research
Kevin C Elliott, Isis H Settles, Georgina M Montgomery, Sheila T Brassel, Kendra Spence Cheruvelil, Patricia A Soranno
Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams...
2017: 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"