人文科学最新文献

A number of proposals across different fields have suggested incorporating "independent" actors into the research process as a way to manage potential bias. For example, in response to allegations of bias in psychedelic science, some have suggested the idea of independent auditors for adverse events, as well as the incorporation of independent researchers into the research teams of psychedelic trials. However, despite growing interest in these methods, the concept of independence itself remains frequently undefined. Moreover, although introducing independent actors may seem like a prima facie beneficial solution to help reduce bias and improve the scientific rigor of research, it may come with significant drawbacks as well. Here, we argue that the sense of independence on which these proposals for independent actors implicitly rely on is freedom from any influence that might alter the actors' choices in a way that reduces the trustworthiness or accuracy of research findings. Whether it is possible to identify and involve such actors without incurring trade-offs with other scientific desiderata (e.g. due to the risk of inadequate expertise) is then further explored. We conclude by providing two models in law and science that may be helpful to draw upon if seeking to incorporate independent actors.

Background: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) courses seek to heighten awareness of the importance of mentor/mentee interactions and other topics, but questions remain - e.g., how best to train mentors/mentees to establish such relationships.

Description of exercise: This paper proposes an approach as a model to strengthen RCR education by more fully, and actively, rather than passively, engaging trainees. A classroom activity was developed that can enhance instructors' abilities to improve mentor/mentee interactions. The instructor divided classes into groups of roughly four trainees, and had them think of a good mentor they have observed, and to list traits/behaviors they liked. Groups then summarized discussions for the class. The instructors recorded and integrated responses. Each group then considered bad mentors, answering the same questions, and repeating the process regarding bad mentees and good mentees. The class then compared the four discussions. Trainees have commonly had both formal and informal mentors, seen both good and bad mentors and mentees, and often themselves served as mentors. Mentees thus connect abstract principles concerning mentorship to personal experiences; and reflect on their own interactions/roles, preferences, and rights/responsibilities.

Conclusion: This exercise suggests some benefits of recognizing personal/emotional, not just intellectual components in RCR, and has important implications for education, practice, and research.

Background: This article reports on the prevalence of registration of empirical studies presented at three editions of the World Conference on Research Integrity at the time of abstract submission.

Methods: During registration and abstract submission, applicants were invited to answer questions on registration of the study they presented and their academic background.

Results: Descriptive analyses of the responses regarding a total of 452 abstracts describing empirical studies showed that the prevalence of registration among presenters of empirical research did not increase across the three WCRIs, and was on average 28%. The verifiability of claims of registration did increase over time, however, from 44% to 88% of the abstracts of empirical studies claimed to be registered. Reasons given for not registering varied substantially, but little faith in its usefulness and unfamiliarity were frequently mentioned. Younger researchers tended to register more often than others, and researchers with a biomedical background registered more frequently.

Conclusion: We suggest simplifying the registration process and propose that funding agencies, research institutes, and scholarly journals should demand registration of empirical studies.

Background: Initiatives in responsible conduct of research (RCR) have often been ineffective, since they are based on several problematic assumptions. These include that (1) integrity issues in biomedical research serve as paradigm cases for those in research in general, (2) the primary cause of research misconduct is individual researchers' behavior, (3) educational interventions alone can prevent research misconduct, and (4) RCR can be addressed at the level of institutions. However, the research ecosystem comprises various partners, including funding agencies, research institutions, professional societies, and accreditation bodies.

Methods: This study employs a review of literature and critical reflection to analyze how partners comprising the research ecosystem shape research environments, making policy recommendations on that basis.

Results: Research misconduct should be understood as resulting from misaligned incentives throughout the research ecosystem. Just as institutional cultures shape individuals, the policies of partners comprising the research ecosystem shape institutional cultures. An ecosystems approach to RCR consists in understanding how partners comprising the research ecosystem depend on each other, using these relations to ensure each holds the others accountable to promote the production of valid and reliable research.

Conclusion: Viewing RCR through an ecosystems lens highlights the need for coordinated accountability among research partners.

Weather and climate research is an area of science in which private companies, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have substantial interests at stake, but little is known about how academic journals address these interests. The primary aim of this study was to help address this question by analyzing the content of funding disclosure polices of journals that publish research on weather and climate. We reviewed and analyzed policies from 100 journals that focus on weather and climate research and found that most of them have comprehensive policies for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) and funding sources. 98% of the journals require disclosure of COIs; 91.8% require funding disclosure; 87.9% require disclosure of non-financial COIs; 86.9% define COIs, 80.8% provide examples of COIs, and 65.7% policies that apply to reviewers and editors, and 55.6% have enforcement mechanisms for violations of COI policies. Several of the policies were positively associated with a higher journal impact factor. Although most journals that publish research on weather and climate research have comprehensive COI and funding disclosure policies, additional research is needed to determine the extent to authors, reviewers, and editors understand and follow these policies.

In many parts of the world, an increasing number of clinical healthcare services are delivered through corporations. These corporations are also increasingly required to shape and undertake vital medical research. In this paper we outline the challenges of setting research priorities in corporatised clinics and ensuring that researchers are accountable to society and alert to the broader societal impacts of their work. We propose that the approach to research governance known as "Responsible Innovation" might provide a useful framework for selecting and shaping corporate research priorities so that they are grounded in population health priorities and wider social benefit. Responsible innovation also provides guidance for engaging patients, consumers, regulators and payers in constructive collaboration with researchers; encouraging ethical reflection by both corporations and individual scientists; and promoting responsiveness to contingencies in the processes, outcomes, and reception of research.