Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

Much of the current attention on artificial intelligence (AI)-based natural language processing (NLP) systems has focused on research ethics and integrity but neglects their roles in the editorial and peer-reviewing process. We argue that the academic community needs to develop and apply a consistent end-to-end policy on the ethics and integrity of NLP in academic publishing: standards such as drafting requirements and disclosure criteria imposed on potential contributors should be consistently applied to the editorial and peer review process in academic publications.

On occasion, following the publication of a paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes. When editors-in-chief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alternative (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not.

The sudden spread of the monkeypox virus has been accompanied by an increase in the scientific interest in the virus. More than 1,400 PubMed-indexed documents have been authored by about 5,800 unique authors, averaging around 120 publications per month. This sheer rise in the number led us to explore the content published in the literature. We discovered more than 30% of the documents are Quantitative Productivity (QP) i.e., papers that illustrate the emerging trends of parachute concerns, modified salami tactics, cyclic recycling, and excellence in redundancy. In addition, we found few common hyper-prolific authors previously identified in the COVID-19 literature. Further, we share our experience in publishing monkeypox literature and highlight the growing readership and citation interest in editorials, commentaries, and correspondences that were thought to be uncitable in the medical literature. As long as the scientific community and public demand, the supply of such papers will continue, with no responsibility on the authors, journals, or the reader. Since overhauling the current system is an arduous task, we propose the optimization of existing retrieval services that would selectively filter documents based on article type (requires standardization of definitions) to dilute the crowding out effects of quantitative productivity.

Practitioners aim to improve healthcare systems and clinical care through a variety of activities as part of a learning healthcare system. Yet the distinction between projects requiring Research Ethics Board (REB) approval or not is becoming increasingly blurred, making it difficult for researchers and others to classify projects and then navigate the required compliance pathway appropriately. To address this challenge, the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia (BC) created a decision tool called the "PHSA Project Sorter Tool" to serve its diverse community while also meeting the unique needs of the BC regulatory and policy environment. The goal of the tool was to standardize and clarify organizational project review and ensure project leads were referred to the appropriate review body or service provider within the PHSA in the most efficient manner possible. In this paper, we describe the ethics needs assessment that was conducted to inform the tool and the results of our ongoing evaluation of the tool since it was launched in January, 2020. Our project shows that this simple tool can reduce burdens on staff and provide clarity to users by standardizing processes and terms and directing users to appropriate internal resources.

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other's findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse. By adopting open science practices, research becomes transparent and accountable. Only then it is possible to verify whether trust in research findings is justified. The magnitude of the issue is substantial with a prevalence of four percent for both fabrication and falsification, and more than 50% for questionable research practices. This implies that researchers regularly engage in behaviors that harm the validity and trustworthiness of their work. What is good for the quality and reliability of research is not always good for a scholarly career. Navigating this dilemma depends on how virtuous the researcher at issue is, but also on the local research climate and the perverse incentives in the way the research system functions. Research institutes, funding agencies and scholarly journals can do a lot to foster research integrity, first and foremost by improving the quality of peer review and reforming researcher assessment.

In February 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released another report acknowledging that we still lack meaningful, validated, widely-accepted measures for evaluating institutional review board (IRB) quality and effectiveness. This challenge is well known to the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (www.AEREO.org), a collaborative group of human research protection (HRP) professionals, researchers, and research ethicists founded in 2018 to do precisely what GAO recommends: examine approaches for measuring IRB effectiveness in protecting human subjects, and implement the approaches as appropriate. Two underlying tenets have been central to AEREO's as approach to thinking about IRB quality and effectiveness: (1) IRBs exist to protect participants and thus the participant perspective should be central to all IRBs do; and (2) because IRBs are tasked with applying subjective ethical and regulatory standards about which people may disagree, their approach and decisions should at least meet the basic standard of reasonableness in terms of accounting for relevant perspectives, considering key factors, and providing defensible justifications. Critical to each of these tenets, IRBs should include diverse perspectives in their deliberations, find ways to meaningfully engage with relevant communities about their views regarding ethical research and appropriate participant protections, and be accountable to the public.

The Monsanto company - now acquired by Bayer - has been accused of ghostwriting articles within peer review literature, with the goal of using influential names to front its content in defence of the herbicide Roundup. Here, I conduct a detailed analysis of three Monsanto review articles and a five-article journal supplement for which detailed information from company emails is publicly available following litigation over Roundup. All the articles had external, but not Monsanto authors, and ghostly practices including ghost authorship, corporate ghost authorship and ghost management were evident in their development. There was clear evidence of ghostwriting - that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors - in only two cases. I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. The articles complied with the disclosure requirements of their journals, save for the journal supplement. While crude ghostwriting did occur, much of the literature involved subtler practices through which Monsanto exercised control over content, while the attribution of the articles downplayed the company's role - and correspondingly aggrandized that of the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations. I discuss these cultural problems and consider remedies.