首页 > 最新文献

Research Ethics最新文献

英文 中文
Augmenting research consent: should large language models (LLMs) be used for informed consent to clinical research? 增强研究同意:大语言模型(LLMs)应该用于临床研究的知情同意吗?
IF 2.2 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-08 DOI: 10.1177/17470161241298726
Jemima W Allen, Owen Schaefer, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Brian D Earp, Dominic Wilkinson

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT, into clinical research could significantly enhance the informed consent process. This paper critically examines the ethical implications of employing LLMs to facilitate consent in clinical research. LLMs could offer considerable benefits, such as improving participant understanding and engagement, broadening participants' access to the relevant information for informed consent and increasing the efficiency of consent procedures. However, these theoretical advantages are accompanied by ethical risks, including the potential for misinformation, coercion and challenges in accountability. Given the complex nature of consent in clinical research, which involves both written documentation (in the form of participant information sheets and informed consent forms) and in-person conversations with a researcher, the use of LLMs raises significant concerns about the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will need to consider substantial reforms to accommodate the integration of LLM-based consent processes. We explore five potential models for LLM implementation, ranging from supplementary roles to complete replacements of current consent processes, and offer recommendations for researchers and IRBs to navigate the ethical landscape. Thus, we aim to provide practical recommendations to facilitate the ethical introduction of LLM-based consent in research settings by considering factors such as participant understanding, information accuracy, human oversight and types of LLM applications in clinical research consent.

将人工智能(AI),特别是像OpenAI的ChatGPT这样的大型语言模型(llm)整合到临床研究中,可以显著增强知情同意过程。本文批判性地考察了在临床研究中使用法学硕士促进同意的伦理含义。法学硕士可以提供相当大的好处,例如提高参与者的理解和参与,扩大参与者获得知情同意相关信息的机会,提高同意程序的效率。然而,这些理论上的优势伴随着道德风险,包括潜在的错误信息、强制和问责挑战。考虑到临床研究中同意的复杂性,它涉及书面文件(以参与者信息表和知情同意书的形式)和与研究人员的面对面对话,法学硕士的使用引起了对现有监管框架充分性的重大关注。机构审查委员会(irb)将需要考虑进行实质性改革,以适应法学硕士同意流程的整合。我们探索了法学硕士实施的五种潜在模式,从补充角色到完全替代当前的同意流程,并为研究人员和irb提供了指导道德景观的建议。因此,我们的目标是通过考虑参与者理解、信息准确性、人为监督和临床研究同意中法学硕士应用类型等因素,提供实用的建议,以促进在研究环境中引入基于法学硕士的同意。
{"title":"Augmenting research consent: should large language models (LLMs) be used for informed consent to clinical research?","authors":"Jemima W Allen, Owen Schaefer, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Brian D Earp, Dominic Wilkinson","doi":"10.1177/17470161241298726","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161241298726","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT, into clinical research could significantly enhance the informed consent process. This paper critically examines the ethical implications of employing LLMs to facilitate consent in clinical research. LLMs could offer considerable benefits, such as improving participant understanding and engagement, broadening participants' access to the relevant information for informed consent and increasing the efficiency of consent procedures. However, these theoretical advantages are accompanied by ethical risks, including the potential for misinformation, coercion and challenges in accountability. Given the complex nature of consent in clinical research, which involves both written documentation (in the form of participant information sheets and informed consent forms) and in-person conversations with a researcher, the use of LLMs raises significant concerns about the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will need to consider substantial reforms to accommodate the integration of LLM-based consent processes. We explore five potential models for LLM implementation, ranging from supplementary roles to complete replacements of current consent processes, and offer recommendations for researchers and IRBs to navigate the ethical landscape. Thus, we aim to provide practical recommendations to facilitate the ethical introduction of LLM-based consent in research settings by considering factors such as participant understanding, information accuracy, human oversight and types of LLM applications in clinical research consent.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 4","pages":"644-670"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7618319/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145446176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Pragmatic and ethical challenges in navigating inauthentic participation in remote qualitative research. 在远程定性研究中导航不真实参与的实用主义和伦理挑战。
IF 2.2 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-05 DOI: 10.1177/17470161251316286
Katelin Hoskins, Kelly Sebetka, Arielle Thomas, Joseph Simonetti, Johnny Williams, Gabriela Khazanov

Restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift towards remote qualitative recruitment and data collection. This shift generated considerable opportunities to conduct qualitative research, but also introduced novel challenges to data integrity in the form of inauthentic participants. While newer literature describes potential strategies that may be deployed to target concerns related to inauthentic participation, an explicit focus on equity and ethical considerations has been largely absent from current discourse. Here we describe our experiences and challenges conducting a study aimed at exploring reasons for recent firearm acquisition among Black Americans. We describe the mitigation strategies we implemented, as well as the ethical challenges and potential consequences that emerged. Our team identified three specific ethical considerations: identity and processes of categorization, trust and mistrust in research engagement, and privacy and honoring sensitive context. These considerations are critical to consider in conducting qualitative research, especially among marginalized groups, and expand the current literature on qualitative research ethics.

COVID-19大流行期间实施的限制要求迅速转向远程定性招聘和数据收集。这种转变为进行定性研究创造了大量机会,但也以不真实参与者的形式对数据完整性提出了新的挑战。虽然较新的文献描述了可能部署的潜在策略,以针对与不真实参与有关的问题,但目前的论述在很大程度上缺乏对公平和道德考虑的明确关注。在这里,我们描述了我们的经验和挑战,进行一项旨在探索美国黑人最近购买枪支的原因的研究。我们描述了我们实施的缓解策略,以及出现的道德挑战和潜在后果。我们的团队确定了三个具体的伦理考虑因素:身份和分类过程,研究参与中的信任和不信任,隐私和尊重敏感背景。在进行定性研究时,尤其是在边缘群体中,这些考虑是至关重要的,并扩展了目前关于定性研究伦理的文献。
{"title":"Pragmatic and ethical challenges in navigating inauthentic participation in remote qualitative research.","authors":"Katelin Hoskins, Kelly Sebetka, Arielle Thomas, Joseph Simonetti, Johnny Williams, Gabriela Khazanov","doi":"10.1177/17470161251316286","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251316286","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift towards remote qualitative recruitment and data collection. This shift generated considerable opportunities to conduct qualitative research, but also introduced novel challenges to data integrity in the form of inauthentic participants. While newer literature describes potential strategies that may be deployed to target concerns related to inauthentic participation, an explicit focus on equity and ethical considerations has been largely absent from current discourse. Here we describe our experiences and challenges conducting a study aimed at exploring reasons for recent firearm acquisition among Black Americans. We describe the mitigation strategies we implemented, as well as the ethical challenges and potential consequences that emerged. Our team identified three specific ethical considerations: <i>identity and processes of categorization</i>, <i>trust and mistrust in research engagement</i>, and <i>privacy and honoring sensitive context.</i> These considerations are critical to consider in conducting qualitative research, especially among marginalized groups, and expand the current literature on qualitative research ethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 4","pages":"671-688"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12530118/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145330374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
"It just feels morally not right to Sell the data": Ethical and social perspectives on human genomic data sharing in Uganda-A phenomenological qualitative study. “出售数据在道德上是不对的”:乌干达人类基因组数据共享的伦理和社会视角——现象学定性研究。
IF 2.2 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2025-08-01 DOI: 10.1177/17470161251361575
Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta, David Kyaddondo, David Kaawa-Mafigiri, John Barugahare, Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, Shenuka Singh, Erisa Mwaka

While genomic data sharing enhances transparency and research efficiency, it also raises significant ethical and social challenges. This study explored stakeholders' perspectives on these issues, particularly around privacy, confidentiality, and equity in collaborative research. A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted between August and December 2023 at Makerere University College of Health Sciences, other research-intensive institutions, and national regulatory bodies. The study engaged 86 participants: 47 key informants (16 researchers, 14 ethics committee members, nine community advisory board members, and eight research regulators) and four deliberative focus group discussions with 39 participants. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 14. Three major themes emerged: (1) stakeholders' experiences in genomic research, including their roles as participants, implementers, or overseers; (2) ethical concerns, such as informed consent, third-party data access, inequities between high-income and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and participants, and the lack of benefit-sharing frameworks; and (3) social implications, including stigma, discrimination, labeling, community perceptions of fairness, and the need for meaningful engagement. Participants emphasized the importance of protecting participant rights, promoting equity, and ensuring robust data governance and security. The theoretical frameworks of principlism and distributive justice provided a valuable lens for examining these concerns, particularly by highlighting the need to safeguard privacy and fairly distribute responsibilities and benefits in global collaborations. Participants also noted that perceptions of fairness are shaped by trust, local context, and past experiences with research factors that are critical for building equitable and respectful partnerships. This study underscores the urgent need to strengthen protections for research participants and promote fairness in genomic data sharing. Policies should, if adopted, emphasize culturally contextualized consent, active community engagement, restricted third-party data access, and strong data protection mechanisms to address existing inequities and prevent misuse.

虽然基因组数据共享提高了透明度和研究效率,但它也引发了重大的伦理和社会挑战。本研究探讨了利益相关者对这些问题的看法,特别是在合作研究中的隐私、保密和公平方面。2023年8月至12月期间,在马凯雷雷大学卫生科学学院、其他研究密集型机构和国家监管机构进行了一项现象学定性研究。该研究涉及86名参与者:47名关键信息提供者(16名研究人员,14名伦理委员会成员,9名社区咨询委员会成员和8名研究监管机构)和4个审议焦点小组讨论,共有39名参与者。访谈逐字记录,并使用NVivo 14进行专题分析。主要有三个主题:(1)利益相关者在基因组研究中的经验,包括他们作为参与者、实施者或监督者的角色;(2)伦理问题,如知情同意、第三方数据访问、高收入国家和中低收入国家(LMIC)研究人员和参与者之间的不平等,以及缺乏利益分享框架;(3)社会影响,包括污名、歧视、标签、社区对公平的看法,以及对有意义参与的需求。与会者强调了保护参与者权利、促进公平以及确保稳健的数据治理和安全的重要性。原则和分配正义的理论框架为研究这些问题提供了一个有价值的视角,特别是通过强调在全球合作中保护隐私和公平分配责任和利益的必要性。与会者还指出,对公平的看法受到信任、当地情况和过去的研究经验的影响,这些因素对建立公平和尊重的伙伴关系至关重要。这项研究强调了加强对研究参与者的保护和促进基因组数据共享公平性的迫切需要。政策应强调文化背景下的同意、积极的社区参与、限制第三方数据访问和强有力的数据保护机制,以解决现有的不公平现象和防止滥用。
{"title":"\"It <i>just feels morally not right</i> to Sell the data\": Ethical and social perspectives on human genomic data sharing in Uganda-A phenomenological qualitative study.","authors":"Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta, David Kyaddondo, David Kaawa-Mafigiri, John Barugahare, Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, Shenuka Singh, Erisa Mwaka","doi":"10.1177/17470161251361575","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251361575","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While genomic data sharing enhances transparency and research efficiency, it also raises significant ethical and social challenges. This study explored stakeholders' perspectives on these issues, particularly around privacy, confidentiality, and equity in collaborative research. A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted between August and December 2023 at Makerere University College of Health Sciences, other research-intensive institutions, and national regulatory bodies. The study engaged 86 participants: 47 key informants (16 researchers, 14 ethics committee members, nine community advisory board members, and eight research regulators) and four deliberative focus group discussions with 39 participants. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 14. Three major themes emerged: (1) stakeholders' experiences in genomic research, including their roles as participants, implementers, or overseers; (2) ethical concerns, such as informed consent, third-party data access, inequities between high-income and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and participants, and the lack of benefit-sharing frameworks; and (3) social implications, including stigma, discrimination, labeling, community perceptions of fairness, and the need for meaningful engagement. Participants emphasized the importance of protecting participant rights, promoting equity, and ensuring robust data governance and security. The theoretical frameworks of principlism and distributive justice provided a valuable lens for examining these concerns, particularly by highlighting the need to safeguard privacy and fairly distribute responsibilities and benefits in global collaborations. Participants also noted that perceptions of fairness are shaped by trust, local context, and past experiences with research factors that are critical for building equitable and respectful partnerships. This study underscores the urgent need to strengthen protections for research participants and promote fairness in genomic data sharing. Policies should, if adopted, emphasize culturally contextualized consent, active community engagement, restricted third-party data access, and strong data protection mechanisms to address existing inequities and prevent misuse.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435449/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Understanding and processing informed consent during data-intensive health research in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities from a multilingual perspective. 在撒哈拉以南非洲数据密集型卫生研究期间理解和处理知情同意:多语言视角下的挑战和机遇。
IF 2.2 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI: 10.1177/17470161241274809
Lillian Omutoko, George Rugare Chingarande, Marietjie Botes, Farayi Moyana, Shenuka Singh, Walter Jaoko, Esperança Sevene, Tiwonge K Mtande, Ama Kyerewaa Edwin, Limbanazo Matandika, Theresa Burgess, Keymanthri Moodley

Africa has a colonial past that renders it a linguistic melting pot, where language is not only important for communication but is inextricably related to cultural identity. In Africa, there are over 2000 languages that are still being used and spoken. Language diversity coupled with cultural diversity may affect the process of obtaining informed consent in data-intensive research. We explore some of the challenges and opportunities of multilingualism in handling informed consent in the context of data-intensive research. In multilingual contexts, as in most African countries, language is exceptionally central, and translation has potential cultural, social, historical, functional and scientific importance. However, it is recognised that terminological and translation activities may not always be cost-effective or feasible. We consider alternative mechanisms of harmonisation of data-related terminology and concepts in multilingual contexts, such as iconography, graphic elicitation and other multimedia formats of information sharing. The inclusion of visual or multimedia explanations in informed consent forms can improve comprehension, enhance information transfer and learning, reduce potential vulnerabilities associated with low literacy levels or the inability to interpret technical language associated with data-intensive research, build trust with participants and their communities, and promote autonomy of potential participants. We recognise that the inclusion of visual or multimedia content to facilitate information transfer is only one component of the informed consent process for data-intensive research. Research ethics committees (RECs) should be mindful of other key considerations and challenges of informed consent for data-intensive research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and to explore whether these alternative forms of consent are ethical and effective in multilingual contexts.

非洲的殖民历史使其成为一个语言大熔炉,在这里,语言不仅对交流很重要,而且与文化认同有着千丝万缕的联系。在非洲,有超过2000种语言仍在使用和使用。语言多样性和文化多样性可能会影响数据密集型研究中获取知情同意的过程。我们探讨了在数据密集型研究的背景下,多语言处理知情同意的一些挑战和机遇。在多语言环境中,如在大多数非洲国家,语言特别重要,翻译具有潜在的文化、社会、历史、功能和科学重要性。然而,人们认识到术语和翻译活动可能并不总是具有成本效益或可行的。我们考虑了在多语言环境中协调数据相关术语和概念的替代机制,如图像学、图形启发和其他信息共享的多媒体格式。在知情同意表格中纳入视觉或多媒体解释,可以提高理解能力,加强信息传递和学习,减少因识字率低或无法解释与数据密集型研究相关的技术语言而导致的潜在脆弱性,与参与者及其社区建立信任,并促进潜在参与者的自主性。我们认识到,包含视觉或多媒体内容以促进信息传递只是数据密集型研究知情同意过程的一个组成部分。研究伦理委员会(rec)应注意撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)数据密集型研究知情同意的其他关键考虑因素和挑战,并探索这些替代形式的同意在多语言环境下是否符合伦理和有效。
{"title":"Understanding and processing informed consent during data-intensive health research in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities from a multilingual perspective.","authors":"Lillian Omutoko, George Rugare Chingarande, Marietjie Botes, Farayi Moyana, Shenuka Singh, Walter Jaoko, Esperança Sevene, Tiwonge K Mtande, Ama Kyerewaa Edwin, Limbanazo Matandika, Theresa Burgess, Keymanthri Moodley","doi":"10.1177/17470161241274809","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161241274809","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Africa has a colonial past that renders it a linguistic melting pot, where language is not only important for communication but is inextricably related to cultural identity. In Africa, there are over 2000 languages that are still being used and spoken. Language diversity coupled with cultural diversity may affect the process of obtaining informed consent in data-intensive research. We explore some of the challenges and opportunities of multilingualism in handling informed consent in the context of data-intensive research. In multilingual contexts, as in most African countries, language is exceptionally central, and translation has potential cultural, social, historical, functional and scientific importance. However, it is recognised that terminological and translation activities may not always be cost-effective or feasible. We consider alternative mechanisms of harmonisation of data-related terminology and concepts in multilingual contexts, such as iconography, graphic elicitation and other multimedia formats of information sharing. The inclusion of visual or multimedia explanations in informed consent forms can improve comprehension, enhance information transfer and learning, reduce potential vulnerabilities associated with low literacy levels or the inability to interpret technical language associated with data-intensive research, build trust with participants and their communities, and promote autonomy of potential participants. We recognise that the inclusion of visual or multimedia content to facilitate information transfer is only one component of the informed consent process for data-intensive research. Research ethics committees (RECs) should be mindful of other key considerations and challenges of informed consent for data-intensive research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and to explore whether these alternative forms of consent are ethical and effective in multilingual contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 3","pages":"503-518"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12346138/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144849289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The responsible conduct of police participatory research: A qualitative study of officers' ethical beliefs. 警察参与研究的负责任行为:警员道德信念的质性研究。
IF 2.2 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2025-06-30 DOI: 10.1177/17470161251349607
Brandon Del Pozo, Lauren Magee, Alina Whiteside, Erin Thompson, Kaitlin Martins

The responsible conduct of research must be sensitive to the unique ethical concerns of the police setting, but we have yet to develop an empirical understanding of the ethics of research involving police officers as participants. To develop such an understanding, this study collected qualitative data from 30 officers serving in eight agencies throughout the United States. The interviews situated their ethical sensibilities about research in relation to the Belmont principles that serve as the dominant source of norms in U.S. research ethics, then evoked reactions about consent, compensation, confidentiality, and researchers' motives. The interviews focused on a) how police officers characterize the responsible conduct of research; b) the extent to which their reasoning tracks established ethical principles, and c) which elements of these principles they emphasize. The study also probed which actors and factors were likely to best protect the ethical interests of police as research participants, and how they could be operationalized in a police research setting. Officers stressed the role of the police sergeant as their ethical fiduciary in the planning and execution of research, the distinction between being neutral versus impartial in research, the acceptability of withholding research questions and hypotheses to ensure candid and forthcoming responses, and, generally, the importance of a form of procedural justice in the conduct of research in police settings. The findings provide recommendations for police participatory research that would empower investigators to interpret and navigate the attendant ethical concerns in the context of their own research tradition, encouraging more frequent and higher quality participation in research among police agencies and their officers.

负责任的研究行为必须对警察设置的独特伦理问题敏感,但我们尚未对涉及警察作为参与者的研究的伦理进行实证理解。为了形成这样的理解,本研究收集了来自美国8个机构的30名官员的定性数据。访谈将他们对研究的伦理敏感性与贝尔蒙特原则联系起来,贝尔蒙特原则是美国研究伦理规范的主要来源,然后引发了关于同意、补偿、保密和研究人员动机的反应。访谈集中在a)警察如何描述负责任的研究行为;B)他们的推理在多大程度上遵循既定的道德原则,c)他们强调这些原则的哪些要素。该研究还探讨了哪些行为者和因素可能最好地保护作为研究参与者的警察的道德利益,以及如何在警察研究环境中实施这些行为和因素。警官们强调了警官在规划和执行研究时作为道德受托人的作用,强调了研究中立与公正之间的区别,强调了保留研究问题和假设以确保坦诚和坦率的答复的可接受性,以及一般来说,强调了在警察机构进行研究时程序正义形式的重要性。研究结果为警察参与性研究提供了建议,使调查人员能够在自己的研究传统背景下解释和处理随之而来的道德问题,鼓励警察机构及其官员更频繁和更高质量地参与研究。
{"title":"The responsible conduct of police participatory research: A qualitative study of officers' ethical beliefs.","authors":"Brandon Del Pozo, Lauren Magee, Alina Whiteside, Erin Thompson, Kaitlin Martins","doi":"10.1177/17470161251349607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251349607","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The responsible conduct of research must be sensitive to the unique ethical concerns of the police setting, but we have yet to develop an empirical understanding of the ethics of research involving police officers as participants. To develop such an understanding, this study collected qualitative data from 30 officers serving in eight agencies throughout the United States. The interviews situated their ethical sensibilities about research in relation to the Belmont principles that serve as the dominant source of norms in U.S. research ethics, then evoked reactions about consent, compensation, confidentiality, and researchers' motives. The interviews focused on a) how police officers characterize the responsible conduct of research; b) the extent to which their reasoning tracks established ethical principles, and c) which elements of these principles they emphasize. The study also probed which actors and factors were likely to best protect the ethical interests of police as research participants, and how they could be operationalized in a police research setting. Officers stressed the role of the police sergeant as their ethical fiduciary in the planning and execution of research, the distinction between being neutral versus impartial in research, the acceptability of withholding research questions and hypotheses to ensure candid and forthcoming responses, and, generally, the importance of a form of procedural justice in the conduct of research in police settings. The findings provide recommendations for police participatory research that would empower investigators to interpret and navigate the attendant ethical concerns in the context of their own research tradition, encouraging more frequent and higher quality participation in research among police agencies and their officers.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382591/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144972846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Disclosing generative AI use for writing assistance should be voluntary. 披露用于写作辅助的生成人工智能应该是自愿的。
IF 2.2 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2025-06-21 DOI: 10.1177/17470161251345499
Mohammad Hosseini, Bert Gordijn, Gregory E Kaebnick, Kristi Holmes

Researchers have been using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to support writing manuscripts for several years now. However, as GenAI evolves and scientists are using it more frequently, the case for mandatory disclosure of GenAI for writing assistance continues to diverge from the initial justifications for disclosure, namely (1) preventing researchers from taking credit for work done by machines; (2) enabling other researchers to critically evaluate a manuscript and its specific claims; and (3) helping editors determine if a submission satisfies their editorial policies. Our initial position (communicated through previous publications) regarding GenAI use for writing assistance was in favor of mandatory disclosure. Nevertheless, as we show in this paper, we have changed our position and now support instituting a voluntary disclosure policy because currently (1) the credit due to machines for assisting researchers is moving below the threshold of requiring recognition; (2) it is impractical (if not impossible) to accurately specify what parts of the text are human-/GenAI-generated; and (3) disclosures could increase biases against non-native speakers of the English language and compromise the integrity of the peer review system. Consequently, we argue, it should be up to the authors of manuscripts to disclose their use of GenAI for writing assistance. For example, in disciplines where writing is the hallmark of originality, or when authors believe disclosure is beneficial, a voluntary checkbox in manuscript submission systems, visible only after publication (rather than a free-text note in the manuscripts) would be preferable.

多年来,研究人员一直在使用生成式人工智能(GenAI)来支持撰写手稿。然而,随着GenAI的发展和科学家们越来越频繁地使用它,强制披露GenAI用于写作协助的情况继续与最初的披露理由不同,即(1)防止研究人员将机器完成的工作归功于自己;(2)使其他研究人员能够批判性地评估手稿及其具体主张;(3)帮助编辑判断投稿是否符合他们的编辑政策。我们最初的立场(通过之前的出版物进行沟通)是支持强制披露GenAI用于写作协助。然而,正如我们在本文中所示,我们已经改变了立场,现在支持制定自愿披露政策,因为目前(1)由于协助研究人员的机器的信用正在低于需要认可的门槛;(2)准确指定文本的哪些部分是人类/基因人工生成的是不切实际的(如果不是不可能的话);(3)披露可能增加对非英语母语人士的偏见,损害同行评议制度的完整性。因此,我们认为,手稿的作者应该公开他们使用GenAI作为写作辅助。例如,在写作是独创性标志的学科中,或者当作者认为披露是有益的时,在手稿提交系统中提供一个仅在发表后可见的自愿复选框(而不是手稿中的自由文本注释)将是可取的。
{"title":"Disclosing generative AI use for writing assistance should be voluntary.","authors":"Mohammad Hosseini, Bert Gordijn, Gregory E Kaebnick, Kristi Holmes","doi":"10.1177/17470161251345499","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251345499","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researchers have been using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to support writing manuscripts for several years now. However, as GenAI evolves and scientists are using it more frequently, the case for mandatory disclosure of GenAI for writing assistance continues to diverge from the initial justifications for disclosure, namely (1) preventing researchers from taking credit for work done by machines; (2) enabling other researchers to critically evaluate a manuscript and its specific claims; and (3) helping editors determine if a submission satisfies their editorial policies. Our initial position (communicated through previous publications) regarding GenAI use for writing assistance was in favor of mandatory disclosure. Nevertheless, as we show in this paper, we have changed our position and now support instituting a voluntary disclosure policy because currently (1) the credit due to machines for assisting researchers is moving below the threshold of requiring recognition; (2) it is impractical (if not impossible) to accurately specify what parts of the text are human-/GenAI-generated; and (3) disclosures could increase biases against non-native speakers of the English language and compromise the integrity of the peer review system. Consequently, we argue, it should be up to the authors of manuscripts to disclose their use of GenAI for writing assistance. For example, in disciplines where writing is the hallmark of originality, or when authors believe disclosure is beneficial, a voluntary checkbox in manuscript submission systems, visible only after publication (rather than a free-text note in the manuscripts) would be preferable.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425484/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145065892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct 认识论美德的缺失和认识论恶习的盛行是研究不当行为中越轨行为的先兆
IF 1.7 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2024-01-04 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231221258
B. Tang
Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP.
科学研究的目的是获取或产生知识,但研究不当行为(RM)和有问题的研究做法 (QRP)会严重破坏这一目的。RM和QRP通常被归结为个人(坏苹果)的道德违规行为,而组织或机构(坏木桶)监管措施的缺陷可能会助长其异常行为。这一概念在一定程度上假定,犯错误的当事人清楚地知道自己的行为是错误的,在道德上是应受谴责的,但仍然继续实施错误行为。然而,受骗者往往不会轻易承认受骗的意图。我认为,除了有意识的道德僭越这一简单化概念之外,认识论美德的缺失和/或认识论恶习的盛行在引发和推动 RM/QRP 方面发挥着重要作用。对犯罪者个人而言,认识论美德的缺失可能会导致或放大一个人在拼命追求成就或卓越时的错误,并将其推向道德的底线或不当行为的滑坡。同样,行为人所在机构或组织缺乏认识论美德,也会助长欺骗行为,压制前者的迹象和警示。此外,审稿人、编辑和期刊表现出的认识论恶习也可能助长 RM/QRP。这种观点认为,研究生态系统中个人的认识缺陷,而不是普遍的道德缺陷,可能是 RM/QRP 普遍存在的原因。
{"title":"Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct","authors":"B. Tang","doi":"10.1177/17470161231221258","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231221258","url":null,"abstract":"Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"19 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139387379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic COVID-19 人类挑战试验和随机对照试验:下一次大流行的经验教训
IF 1.7 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2024-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231223594
Charles Weijer
The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards.
COVID-19 大流行引发了一场前所未有的疫苗和治疗方法的探索。毫无疑问,研制出预防 COVID-19 的疫苗是一项巨大的科学成就。此外,"康复 "和 "团结 "试验也确定了治疗 COVID-19 的有效方法。但是,一切并不成功。对 COVID-19 预防和治疗的迫切需求助长了对风险的接受--包括对研究参与者和科学本身可靠性的风险--据称这是加快科学进步的必要代价。科学家和(甚至)伦理学家都支持推翻长期以来在人体挑战试验中保护健康志愿者的准则,以加快疫苗的研发,但这些试验却没有带来任何疫苗。在研究伦理委员会的批准下,医生们设计了数百项无盲法、单中心、高偏倚风险的临床试验,以加快新疗法的确定。但是,这些临床试验并没有产生任何治疗方法。未来流行病的教训是,接受对参与者或科学更大的风险并不能可靠地带来进步。坚持最高道德和方法标准的科学更有利于我们。
{"title":"COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic","authors":"Charles Weijer","doi":"10.1177/17470161231223594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231223594","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"142 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139387473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Stakeholders' experiences of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials in a limited resource setting: a qualitative analysis. 有限资源环境下聚类随机试验中利益相关者的伦理挑战经验:定性分析。
IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-15 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231191247
Tiwonge K Mtande, Carl Lombard, Gonasagrie Nair, Stuart Rennie

Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design.

尽管越来越多地使用聚类随机试验(CRT)设计来评估疫苗、公共卫生干预措施或卫生系统,但该设计带来的伦理问题没有得到充分解决,特别是在低收入和中等收入国家环境中。为了帮助揭示伦理挑战,我们与在马拉维设计和实施两项选定的crt方面经验丰富的主要利益攸关方进行了定性访谈。受访的18名利益攸关方包括调查人员、临床医生、护士、数据管理人员和社区工作者,他们应邀分享了与实施crt相关的经验。数据分析揭示了具有伦理意义的五大主题:(1)卫生保健提供者参与卫生研究的道德义务及其补偿;(2)次优护理服务影响CRT的完整性;(3)保证科学有效性,保留护理服务;(四)取得有效的同意和放弃同意的许可;(5)参与试验的风险评估不充分。了解马拉维的crt所带来的关键伦理问题可以改善对这一特定研究设计的伦理审查和研究监督。
{"title":"Stakeholders' experiences of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials in a limited resource setting: a qualitative analysis.","authors":"Tiwonge K Mtande, Carl Lombard, Gonasagrie Nair, Stuart Rennie","doi":"10.1177/17470161231191247","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161231191247","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"64-78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12077595/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82220035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada 在加拿大制定新的 TCPS 2 培训计划时 REB 成员的需求和偏好
IF 1.7 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-12-15 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231218173
Jiale Xie, Denise Stockley, Amber Hastings Truelove, Susan Marlin, Rachel Zand, Jennifer Payne, Miranda Miller, Eleftherios K. Soleas
Despite advancements in human research ethics and the growing significance of Research Ethics Board (REB) members, educational opportunities specifically tailored to their needs remain lacking in many countries. In response to this gap, our research aims to understand the demographics, needs, and preferences for educational opportunities of REB members in Canada. We conducted a survey that found REB demographics to be diverse and have different perceptions of their roles on topics such as the evaluation of the scientific merit of studies and responsibilities to stakeholders. We found that REB members in general prefer online tutorials and webinars for their education. Educators interested in facilitating the development of future training programs should consider the needs and preferences of REB members outlined in this publication.
尽管人类研究伦理取得了进步,研究伦理委员会(REB)成员的重要性也与日俱增,但许多国家仍然缺乏专门针对他们需求的教育机会。针对这一差距,我们的研究旨在了解加拿大研究伦理委员会成员的人口统计、需求和对教育机会的偏好。我们进行了一项调查,发现注册生物学家委员会的人员构成多种多样,他们对自己在评估研究的科学价值和对利益相关者的责任等方面的角色有着不同的认识。我们发现,REB 成员普遍更喜欢通过在线教程和网络研讨会接受教育。有意促进未来培训项目发展的教育工作者应考虑本出版物中列出的 REB 成员的需求和偏好。
{"title":"Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada","authors":"Jiale Xie, Denise Stockley, Amber Hastings Truelove, Susan Marlin, Rachel Zand, Jennifer Payne, Miranda Miller, Eleftherios K. Soleas","doi":"10.1177/17470161231218173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231218173","url":null,"abstract":"Despite advancements in human research ethics and the growing significance of Research Ethics Board (REB) members, educational opportunities specifically tailored to their needs remain lacking in many countries. In response to this gap, our research aims to understand the demographics, needs, and preferences for educational opportunities of REB members in Canada. We conducted a survey that found REB demographics to be diverse and have different perceptions of their roles on topics such as the evaluation of the scientific merit of studies and responsibilities to stakeholders. We found that REB members in general prefer online tutorials and webinars for their education. Educators interested in facilitating the development of future training programs should consider the needs and preferences of REB members outlined in this publication.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138996688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Research Ethics
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1