Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

Plagiarism is a highly discussed issue in higher education institutions in recent times. Turnitin text-matching software has widely been adopted by many academic institutions in Ghana as one of the solutions to improving students' and faculty academic writing and a solution for detecting incidences of plagiarism. There has been little empirical research into what students actually know about plagiarism and their lived experiences of text-matching technology, despite the fact that a lot of research has looked at attitudes, motivations, and demographic characteristics related to academic dishonesty. This study used an online Google form for data collection. We enrolled 1054 postgraduate students of the University of Cape Coast. The data collected was analyzed using SPSS version 21.0, and the proposed hypothesis was tested using Structural Equation Modeling. Findings show that there was no statistically significant relationship between postgraduate students' academic levels and their perception of plagiarism. However, there is significant relationship between postgraduate students' perception of plagiarism and their use of Turnitin. There is also statistically significant relationship between postgraduate students' awareness of Turnitin and its use. This calls for increased awareness creation and sensitization, which can be accomplished through scientific writing workshops, focused on inculcating ethical research practices into students.

Health-related innovation in biotechnology requires anticipating potential bioethical implications. In this article, we present a strategy to embed ethics in a group of early-stage researchers performing research in gene therapy and regenerative medicine in the laboratory phase. We conducted a series of focus group meetings with early-stage researchers who work in biotechnology laboratories. The objective was to reflect on the bioethical challenges of their own work and to promote the integration of research ethics with laboratory practice. The activity was assessed with questionnaires completed by the researchers before and after the meetings, and the analyses of the focus groups' content. As a result of the focus group series, all participants changed their perspectives about ethical issues regarding their planned research, developed the ability to reflect and debate on research ethics and had increased awareness of ethical issues in their own research activities. Half of them made changes in their research work. The study provides a concrete strategy to embed ethics and to strengthen responsibility in laboratory research. It is a strategy that allows to perform ethics reflection "on site" and in "real time" and complements the classic strategy of ethics assessment of the research protocol before starting the research procedure.

ChatGPT, a chatbot released by OpenAI in November 2022, has rocked academia with its capacity to generate papers "good enough" for academic journals. Major journals such as Nature and professional societies such as the World Association of Medical Editors have moved fast to issue policies to ban or curb AI-written papers. Amid the flurry of policy initiatives, one important challenge seems to be overlooked: AI-generated papers are not easily discernible to the human eye, and we lack the right tools to implement the policies. Without such tools, the well-intentioned policies are likely to remain on paper.

Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.

Research Integrity Advisors are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness.

Purpose: The increasing use of AI tools, particularly large language models like ChatGPT, in academic research has raised significant questions about authorship and transparency. This commentary emphasizes the need for a standardized AI contributions taxonomy to clarify AI's role in producing and publishing research outputs, ensuring ethical standards and maintaining academic integrity.

Approach: We propose adapting the NIST AI Use Taxonomy and incorporating categories that reflect AI's use in tasks such as hypothesis generation, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and ethical oversight. Findings: Establishing an AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would address inconsistencies in AI disclosure, enhance transparency, and uphold accountability in research. It would help differentiate between AI-assisted and human-led tasks, providing more explicit attribution of contributions.

Findings: Establishing an AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would address inconsistencies in AI disclosure, enhance transparency, and uphold accountability in research. It would help differentiate between AI-assisted and human-led tasks, providing more explicit attribution of contributions.

Practical implications: The proposed taxonomy would offer researchers and journals a standardized method for disclosing AI's role in academic work, promoting responsible and transparent reporting aligned with ethical guidelines from COPE and ICMJE.

Value: A well-defined AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would foster transparency and trust in using AI in research, ensuring that AI's role is appropriately acknowledged while preserving academic integrity.

Given animal research is challenged with inadequacies, e.g., animal-to-human knowledge translation, ethical considerations, and cost:benefit, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been proposed as a replacement. With reference to the field of nutrition and dietetics, our aim was to examine the policies of its leading journals regarding human-based vs. traditional animal-based research; and to explore emerging NAMs that provide alternatives to animal experimentation. We reviewed 100 leading journals from an established database (SCImago Journal Rankings) in the nutrition and dietetics category for the year 2022. Eighty-three journals met the inclusion criteria. NAMs were extracted from a range of established sources. 9.6% (n = 8) of journals state they do not publish animal-based studies; 4.8% (n = 4) consider animal studies with qualifications, whereas the remaining 85.5% (n = 71) publish animal studies without qualification. Across sources, NAMs commonalities were identified including in vitro, in chemico, and in silico methods; and individual and population-based studies. Of leading nutrition/dietetic journals, relatively few have shifted to strictly non-animal methods. Greater attention to the increasing range of NAMs may not only reduce the need for animal research in the field, but may provide superior human-relevant outcomes. Studies are needed to establish their potential superiority.