Pub Date : 2022-11-10DOI: 10.1177/17470161221134023
Will Hall
Public participation and survivor research in mental health are widely recognized as vital to the field. At the same time, contributions of patient collaborators can present unique challenges to determining authorship. Using an unresolved dispute around research contributions to the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatric Services journal, authorship and contribution are addressed. Recommendations are suggested to prevent dilemmas and achieve responsible research credit inclusion, especially among researchers with different backgrounds and asymmetric power relations. Researchers and publishers can prepare proactively for conflict through consensus on authorship criteria, prior agreements around author inclusion, arrangement for third party dispute resolution, transparency in communication and contracts, notification to prospective publications of pending disputes, a contributor-guarantor model of contribution, journal editor “expressions of concern” when authorship disputes go unresolved, and expectation of conflict as generative.
{"title":"Authorship disputes and patient research participation: collaborating across backgrounds","authors":"Will Hall","doi":"10.1177/17470161221134023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221134023","url":null,"abstract":"Public participation and survivor research in mental health are widely recognized as vital to the field. At the same time, contributions of patient collaborators can present unique challenges to determining authorship. Using an unresolved dispute around research contributions to the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatric Services journal, authorship and contribution are addressed. Recommendations are suggested to prevent dilemmas and achieve responsible research credit inclusion, especially among researchers with different backgrounds and asymmetric power relations. Researchers and publishers can prepare proactively for conflict through consensus on authorship criteria, prior agreements around author inclusion, arrangement for third party dispute resolution, transparency in communication and contracts, notification to prospective publications of pending disputes, a contributor-guarantor model of contribution, journal editor “expressions of concern” when authorship disputes go unresolved, and expectation of conflict as generative.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"90 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88429064","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-01DOI: 10.1177/17470161221131491
J. Powell
Peer review has long been regarded as the gold standard of scientific publication, essential to the integrity of science itself. But, as any publishing scientist knows, peer review has its downside, including long delays and reviewer bias. Until the coming of the Internet, there appeared to be no alternative. Now, articles appear online as preprints almost immediately upon submission. But they lack peer review and thus their scientific standing can be questioned. Post-publication discussion platforms such as PubPeer have proven useful, but are no substitute for pre-publication peer review. Nevertheless, some may be tempted to believe that peer review can now be done without. This article challenges that view by analyzing a recent, non-peer-reviewed article in Skeptical Enquirer, a magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Enquiry (CSI). The article, “Sodom Meteor Strike Claims Should Be Taken With a Pillar of Salt,” casts doubt on one of the most widely read scientific articles of the last decade and provides a stern warning of the cost of abandoning peer review.
{"title":"Peer review and the pillar of salt: a case study","authors":"J. Powell","doi":"10.1177/17470161221131491","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221131491","url":null,"abstract":"Peer review has long been regarded as the gold standard of scientific publication, essential to the integrity of science itself. But, as any publishing scientist knows, peer review has its downside, including long delays and reviewer bias. Until the coming of the Internet, there appeared to be no alternative. Now, articles appear online as preprints almost immediately upon submission. But they lack peer review and thus their scientific standing can be questioned. Post-publication discussion platforms such as PubPeer have proven useful, but are no substitute for pre-publication peer review. Nevertheless, some may be tempted to believe that peer review can now be done without. This article challenges that view by analyzing a recent, non-peer-reviewed article in Skeptical Enquirer, a magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Enquiry (CSI). The article, “Sodom Meteor Strike Claims Should Be Taken With a Pillar of Salt,” casts doubt on one of the most widely read scientific articles of the last decade and provides a stern warning of the cost of abandoning peer review.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"78 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89435461","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-20DOI: 10.1177/17470161221127329
K. Chatfield
{"title":"Editorial: Complaints mechanisms in research: are they fit for purpose?","authors":"K. Chatfield","doi":"10.1177/17470161221127329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221127329","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"128 1","pages":"263 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72821461","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-17DOI: 10.1177/17470161221125097
N. S. Yeo-Teh, B. Tang
Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM.
{"title":"Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct: should we be too bothered with a causal relationship?","authors":"N. S. Yeo-Teh, B. Tang","doi":"10.1177/17470161221125097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221125097","url":null,"abstract":"Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"8 1","pages":"329 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86618777","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}
Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1177/17470161221116558
Patrik Baard, P. Sandin
Citizen science (CS) has been presented as a novel form of research relevant for social concerns and global challenges. CS transforms the roles of participants to being actively involved at various stages of research processes, CS projects are dynamic, and pluralism arises when many non-professional researchers take an active involvement in research. Some argue that these elements all make existing research ethical principles and regulations ill-suited for guiding responsible CS conduct. However, while many have sought to highlight such challenges from CS, few have discussed principles per se providing the foundation for regulations. In this article we will investigate the possibilities of midlevel principlism in guiding responsible CS conduct. Principlism has the potential of accommodating many of the concerns taken to reduce the relevance of existing principles.
{"title":"Principlism and citizen science: the possibilities and limitations of principlism for guiding responsible citizen science conduct","authors":"Patrik Baard, P. Sandin","doi":"10.1177/17470161221116558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221116558","url":null,"abstract":"Citizen science (CS) has been presented as a novel form of research relevant for social concerns and global challenges. CS transforms the roles of participants to being actively involved at various stages of research processes, CS projects are dynamic, and pluralism arises when many non-professional researchers take an active involvement in research. Some argue that these elements all make existing research ethical principles and regulations ill-suited for guiding responsible CS conduct. However, while many have sought to highlight such challenges from CS, few have discussed principles per se providing the foundation for regulations. In this article we will investigate the possibilities of midlevel principlism in guiding responsible CS conduct. Principlism has the potential of accommodating many of the concerns taken to reduce the relevance of existing principles.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"14 1","pages":"304 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89667304","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}
Pub Date : 2022-08-02DOI: 10.1177/17470161221116552
J. Aguinaldo
In this case study, I address the procedural ethics of conversation analysis (CA) and the collection of naturally occurring mundane interactions. I draw from the challenges that emerged from the institutional ethics review of the HIV, health and interaction study (the H2I Study), a CA project that sought to identify the practices through which normative assumptions of HIV and other health conditions are produced in conversations. Consistent with CA’s preference for naturally occurring interactions, the H2I Study collected and analysed everyday telephone calls involving people living with HIV. This article offers practical strategies CA researchers might use to navigate two ethical concerns raised about the collection of naturally occurring mundane interactions. The first questions the merits of collecting naturally occurring mundane interactions. For those unfamiliar with CA, the specific advantages of analysing naturally occurring mundane interactions may not be self-evident. This places an evidentiary burden on CA researchers to warrant the collection of this type of data. To address this concern, I suggest demonstrating in ethics applications the analytic value of CA using publicly available interactions. The second concern questions the use of verbal consent necessary for the collection of naturally occurring mundane interactions. Like most CA research, the H2I Study required flexible informed consent protocols appropriate for spontaneous and unpredictable interactions. Drawing from within and outside the CA literature, I offer three rationales for the use of verbal consent. This article is written as a practical resource for conversation analysts seeking approval from their research ethics board (REB) and for REBs who might be unfamiliar with CA research. This article contributes to a small but growing body of literature that documents not only the kinds of challenges CA researchers encounter from institutional ethics review, but the specific procedural ethics they may employ to secure ethics approval.
{"title":"Ethics review and conversation analysis","authors":"J. Aguinaldo","doi":"10.1177/17470161221116552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221116552","url":null,"abstract":"In this case study, I address the procedural ethics of conversation analysis (CA) and the collection of naturally occurring mundane interactions. I draw from the challenges that emerged from the institutional ethics review of the HIV, health and interaction study (the H2I Study), a CA project that sought to identify the practices through which normative assumptions of HIV and other health conditions are produced in conversations. Consistent with CA’s preference for naturally occurring interactions, the H2I Study collected and analysed everyday telephone calls involving people living with HIV. This article offers practical strategies CA researchers might use to navigate two ethical concerns raised about the collection of naturally occurring mundane interactions. The first questions the merits of collecting naturally occurring mundane interactions. For those unfamiliar with CA, the specific advantages of analysing naturally occurring mundane interactions may not be self-evident. This places an evidentiary burden on CA researchers to warrant the collection of this type of data. To address this concern, I suggest demonstrating in ethics applications the analytic value of CA using publicly available interactions. The second concern questions the use of verbal consent necessary for the collection of naturally occurring mundane interactions. Like most CA research, the H2I Study required flexible informed consent protocols appropriate for spontaneous and unpredictable interactions. Drawing from within and outside the CA literature, I offer three rationales for the use of verbal consent. This article is written as a practical resource for conversation analysts seeking approval from their research ethics board (REB) and for REBs who might be unfamiliar with CA research. This article contributes to a small but growing body of literature that documents not only the kinds of challenges CA researchers encounter from institutional ethics review, but the specific procedural ethics they may employ to secure ethics approval.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"34 1","pages":"319 - 328"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73699467","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}
Pub Date : 2022-07-07DOI: 10.1177/17470161221111059
K. Chatfield, C. Lightbody, Ifikar Qayum, H. Ohly, Marena Ceballos Rasgado, C. Watkins, Nicola M. Lowe
The Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (GCC) aims to stop the export of unethical research practices from higher to lower income settings. Launched in 2018, the GCC was immediately adopted by European Commission funding streams for application in research that is situated in lower and lower-middle income countries. Other institutions soon followed suit. This article reports on the application of the GCC in two of the first UK-funded projects to implement this new code, one situated in India and one in Pakistan. Through systematic ethics evaluation of both projects, the practical application of the GCC in real-world environments was tested. The findings of this ethics evaluation suggest that while there are challenges for implementation, application of the GCC can promote equity in international research collaborations.
{"title":"Can an ethics code help to achieve equity in international research collaborations? Implementing the global code of conduct for research in resource-poor settings in India and Pakistan","authors":"K. Chatfield, C. Lightbody, Ifikar Qayum, H. Ohly, Marena Ceballos Rasgado, C. Watkins, Nicola M. Lowe","doi":"10.1177/17470161221111059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221111059","url":null,"abstract":"The Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (GCC) aims to stop the export of unethical research practices from higher to lower income settings. Launched in 2018, the GCC was immediately adopted by European Commission funding streams for application in research that is situated in lower and lower-middle income countries. Other institutions soon followed suit. This article reports on the application of the GCC in two of the first UK-funded projects to implement this new code, one situated in India and one in Pakistan. Through systematic ethics evaluation of both projects, the practical application of the GCC in real-world environments was tested. The findings of this ethics evaluation suggest that while there are challenges for implementation, application of the GCC can promote equity in international research collaborations.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"141 1","pages":"281 - 303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89918824","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}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/17470161221076974
Sylvia Nabukenya, Joseph Ochieng, David Kaawa-Mafigiri, Ian Munabi, Janet Nakigudde, Frederick Nelson Nakwagala, John Barugahare, Betty Kwagala, Charles Ibingira, Adelline Twimwijukye, Nelson Sewankambo, Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka
This study aimed to explore experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetics research and to identify the approaches used for enhancing understanding during the consenting process. Data collection involved 15 qualitative, in-depth interviews with key researchers who were involved in obtaining informed consent from HIV infected individuals in Uganda for participation in pharmacogenetic clinical trials. The study explored two prominent themes: approaches used to convey information and enhance research participants' understanding and challenges faced during the consenting process. Several barriers and facilitators for obtaining consent were identified. Innovative and potentially effective consenting strategies were identified in this study that should be studied and independently verified.
{"title":"Experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetic research among people living with HIV: a qualitative study.","authors":"Sylvia Nabukenya, Joseph Ochieng, David Kaawa-Mafigiri, Ian Munabi, Janet Nakigudde, Frederick Nelson Nakwagala, John Barugahare, Betty Kwagala, Charles Ibingira, Adelline Twimwijukye, Nelson Sewankambo, Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka","doi":"10.1177/17470161221076974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221076974","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to explore experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetics research and to identify the approaches used for enhancing understanding during the consenting process. Data collection involved 15 qualitative, in-depth interviews with key researchers who were involved in obtaining informed consent from HIV infected individuals in Uganda for participation in pharmacogenetic clinical trials. The study explored two prominent themes: approaches used to convey information and enhance research participants' understanding and challenges faced during the consenting process. Several barriers and facilitators for obtaining consent were identified. Innovative and potentially effective consenting strategies were identified in this study that should be studied and independently verified.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"18 3","pages":"193-209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0e/45/nihms-1839228.PMC9536131.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9703846","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}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/17470161221094929
AH Elise van Beeck, K. Pridham, Yvonne J. Kuipers
The ‘What Being the Parent of a New Baby is Like-Revised’ (WPL-R) is an instrument designed to measure adaptation to parenthood. In the process of pilot testing and validating the WPL-R in a postpartum Dutch population, we became aware of the potentially sensitive nature of the measure. Despite the ethics committee waiving the invasive nature of the measure, we conducted a survey to explore its possible effect on women’s thoughts and emotions by using the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) to measure changes associated with completion of the WPL-R. Two hundred and fifteen questionnaires were returned. Our findings indicated a change in PANAS scores, implying an intervening effect when using the WPL-R, in research. This raises the question of whether it is acceptable to use a questionnaire with postpartum women without any knowledge of the possible effect it may have, even though the ethics committee has approved the study and considers the measure to be non-invasive.
{"title":"The intervening effect of the What Being the Parent of a New Baby is Like-Revised questionnaire on maternal affect","authors":"AH Elise van Beeck, K. Pridham, Yvonne J. Kuipers","doi":"10.1177/17470161221094929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221094929","url":null,"abstract":"The ‘What Being the Parent of a New Baby is Like-Revised’ (WPL-R) is an instrument designed to measure adaptation to parenthood. In the process of pilot testing and validating the WPL-R in a postpartum Dutch population, we became aware of the potentially sensitive nature of the measure. Despite the ethics committee waiving the invasive nature of the measure, we conducted a survey to explore its possible effect on women’s thoughts and emotions by using the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) to measure changes associated with completion of the WPL-R. Two hundred and fifteen questionnaires were returned. Our findings indicated a change in PANAS scores, implying an intervening effect when using the WPL-R, in research. This raises the question of whether it is acceptable to use a questionnaire with postpartum women without any knowledge of the possible effect it may have, even though the ethics committee has approved the study and considers the measure to be non-invasive.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"75 1","pages":"250 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77278409","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：