Read by QxMD icon Read

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, STAP cells, and NgAgo...
May 20, 2018: Accountability in Research
Alain Braillon
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
May 14, 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...
May 2, 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 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 misdemeanours of ghost writing and honorary authorship...
March 27, 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
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
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
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...
2018: Accountability in Research
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...
2018: Accountability in Research
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 of the "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...
2018: 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
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"