Read by QxMD icon Read

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 papers has increased dramatically over the past 20 years and now comprises about 0.02% of the 2 million papers 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...
March 8, 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...
March 8, 2018: Accountability in Research
Barton Moffatt
In this paper, 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 like ghostwriting. Judgements about who should be able to decide who is an author raise interesting questions about the autonomy of scientific practices.
February 5, 2018: Accountability in Research
Moataz Ehab Mohamed, Nagla Mohy, Sarah Salah
AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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 definition, attitudes and practicing of plagiarism. RESULTS: Four hundred and fourteen students, 320 females and 94 males, participated in the study...
February 4, 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...
February 2, 2018: Accountability in Research
Angelina Patrick Olesen, Latifah Amin, Zurina Mahadi
This paper 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, were witnessed by participants among junior and senior researchers, albeit for different reasons...
February 2, 2018: Accountability in Research
M Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón, Pere Godoy, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Miguel Ángel Negrín, Carmen Vives-Cases, Carlos Álvarez-Dardet, Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo, M José López, Glòria Pérez, Carme Borrell
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: Descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy...
February 1, 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...
January 1, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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"