人文科学最新文献

As relatively new economies to the global research arena, East Asian nations have fully realized the importance of research integrity in recent decades. This article conducts document analysis to demonstrate and discuss the current situation of research integrity campaigns in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, nations that have similar cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. This article emphasizes the common situations faced by these three nations both individually and collectively. Based on a four-pillar framework, research integrity campaigns in these nations are making progress in terms of policies and regulations, institutional management, researchers' education and training, and the handling of misconduct cases. Various issues and challenges have also emerged in this context, although these efforts may have had positive impacts on research communities in these three nations. Challenges associated with research integrity governance, institutional willingness, RCR instructor qualifications, the effectiveness of education, and the standardization of definitions of misconduct and noncompliance are also highlighted. The issues discussed in this article are expected to have implications for research communities and policy-makers in these three nations as well as in a global context.

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of previous research that has investigated retractions within the biomedical fields and assess their methodological quality. We searched three major electronic databases for articles on retractions within the biomedical field: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. In total, 162 articles were included in the analysis. We evaluated their methodological quality using the items of "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR-2) checklist and the Cochrane guidance. The studies had been published in more than 20 biomedical disciplines or fields of investigation, and two-thirds were published after 2017. Concerning methodology, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; five studies did not meet any of the suggested AMSTAR-2 categories or Cochrane guidelines. The most prevalent reported reasons for retraction were fraud and plagiarism (21.0%). In summary, there has been increasing interest in assessing the characteristics and impact of retractions in the biomedical sciences. The studies cited types of misconduct more often than honest errors as a major reason for retraction. The methodological quality of the existing studies in this area appears to be suboptimal. Future investigators should improve upon this, particularly in the quality of the data selection and extraction.

Structures for and practices of research integrity (RI) and research ethics (RE) differ among countries. This study analyzed the processes and structures for RI and RE in Europe, following the framework developed at the World Conferences on Research Integrity. We present RI and RE Country Report Cards for 16 European countries, which included the information on RI and RE structures, processes and outcomes. While some of the countries are front-runners when it comes to RI and RE, with well-established and continually developing policies and structures, others are just starting their journey in RI and RE. Although RI and RE contextual divergences must be taken into account, a level of harmonization among the countries is necessary so that researchers working in the European area can similarly handle RI and RE issues and have similar expectations regardless of the organization in which they work. RI and RE Country Report Cards can be a tool to monitor, compare, and strengthen RE and integrity across countries through empowerment and inspiration by examples of good practices and developed systems.

Efforts to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act in order to align law with medical practice have failed. Medical practice must now align with the law. People who are not dead under the law that defines death should not be declared dead. There is no compelling reason to continue the practice of declaring legally living persons to be dead.

This study was conducted with the aim of exploring the general parsing mechanisms involved in processing different kinds of dependency relations, namely verb agreement with subjects versus objects in Punjabi, an SOV Indo-Aryan language. Event related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded as twenty-five native Punjabi speakers read transitive sentences. Critical stimuli were either fully acceptable as regards verb agreement, or alternatively violated gender agreement with the subject or object. A linear mixed-models analysis confirmed a P600 effect at the position of the verb for all violations, regardless of whether subject or object agreement was violated. These results thus suggest that an identical mechanism is involved in gender agreement computation in Punjabi regardless of whether the agreement is with the subject or the object argument.

Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, "intent" is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of "intent" in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation, as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudications and in delivering sanctions.

The sensitivity of human tissue and previous instances of misuse have, rightfully, led to the introduction of far-reaching oversight and regulatory mechanisms for accessing, storing and sharing samples. However, these restrictions, in tandem with more broad-based privacy regulations, have had the unintended consequence of obstructing legitimate requests for medical materials. This is of real detriment to ambitions for biomedical research, most notably the precision medicine agenda. As such, this paper makes the case for facilitating authorised researcher access to human tissue and associated data along practical medical ethics lines, detailing how liberating samples from unfit regulations, re-evaluating biobanks, diversifying considerations for donor benefit-risk, future proofing donor consent and flattening hierarchies of donation acceptability equate to a more cohesive and respectful means of managing biological samples and information than is achieved at present.

Neil Levy argues in a recent JME 'Current controversy' paper that responsibility is not an adequate authorship requirement for human researchers, which makes it unjustified to require it from artificial intelligence contributing to research and scientific paper production, although he softens his stance towards the end and accepts that a limited responsibility requirement might after all be reasonable. The main argument provided by Levy against a more extensive responsibility requirement in science is that there are many cases where not all researchers listed as coauthors can assume responsibility for the entire paper or even the central research questions. In this reply, we argue that the more limited responsibility requirement is the ethically reasonable one to ask of all authors, considering the conditions for and value of collaboration, and that this should also have ramifications for the legal regulation of scientific misconduct.

Quantum mechanics poses several challenges in ontological elucidation. Contextuality threatens determinism and favors realism about possibilia. Indistinguishability challenges traditional identity criteria associated with individual objects. Entanglement favors holistic and relational approaches. These issues, in close connection with different interpretations of quantum mechanics, have given rise to various proposals for the ontology of quantum mechanics. There is a proposal that is realistic about possibilia, where quantum systems are seen as bundles of possible intrinsic properties. This proposal is developed in close connection with modal interpretations and addresses quantum contextuality straightforwardly. There are also proposals based on relations, associated with the relational quantum mechanics interpretation. In this paper, features of these proposals are combined to obtain a modal bundle-theorist relational proposal. Its aim is to consistently and straightforwardly address both contextuality and the holistic and relational aspects of quantum mechanics arising from quantum entanglement. The proposal, if some additional principles are assumed, may turn out to be both an instance of moderate structuralism and priority monism.

Can a human right to good mental health be justified? This is an under-explored question: until recently, rights in relation to mental health have been framed and debated primarily in terms of their relevance to psychosocial disability and mental ill-health/mental distress. By contrast, in this article, I propose the basis of a normative justification for a population-wide right to good mental health, focusing in particular on individuals who do not experience mental ill-health/distress or do not have (or may never have) a psychiatric diagnosis or a psychosocial disability. The article is structured into three parts. First, I will outline the emergence of a population-wide right to good mental health in mental health discourse, led by recent reports published by the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Danius Pūras. I will then go on to explore what we might understand by 'good mental health'. Finally, I will explain how a right to good mental health may be justified, drawing on insights from compassion, 'vulnerable agency', and James Wilson's account of 'a right to public health'. I then respond to feasibility and demandingness concerns about such a right, which together inform the basis of the qualified public health right to good mental health I propose.