Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

This letter to the editor argues that if academic journals are willing to accept papers that include NLP-generated content under certain conditions, editorial policies should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in the paper. Excessive use of NLP-generated content should be considered as academic misconduct.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced Principal Investigators (PIs) to make rapid and unprecedented decisions about ongoing research projects and research teams. Confronted with vague or shifting guidance from institutional administrators and public health officials, PIs nonetheless had to decide whether their projects were "essential," who could conduct on-site "essential" research, how to continue research activities by remote means if possible, and how to safely and effectively manage personnel during the crisis. Based on both narrative comments from a federally sponsored survey of over a thousand NIH- and NSF-funded PIs and their personnel, as well as follow-up interviews with over 60 survey participants, this study examines various ways PI and institutional decisions raised issues of procedural and distributive fairness. These fairness issues include the challenge of treating research personnel fairly in light of their disparate personal circumstances and inconsistent enforcement of COVID-19-related directives. Our findings highlight aspects of fairness and equitability that all PIs and research administrators should keep in mind for when future research disruptions occur.

Plagiarism is a common issue in written academic assignments and graduation theses. This multicenter study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitude, opinion, perspective, and agreement of Palestinian medical students on strategies/recommendations to curb plagiarism. The study was conducted in a cross-sectional design using a questionnaire in all universities with medical education programs. The questionnaire contained 12 knowledge items, 8 attitude items, 6 opinion/perspective items, and 8 strategies/recommendations to curb plagiarism. Of the 550 invited medical students, 474 completed the study tool. Knowledge, attitude, opinion, perspective, and agreement on strategies/recommendations scores correlated positively. Higher knowledge, attitude, opinion, perspective, and agreement on strategies/recommendations scores were significantly associated with higher academic/training year, grade point average, satisfaction with academic achievement, academic writing skills, informational skills, using citation managers, receiving courses/workshops/lecturers on plagiarism, using plagiarism checking tools, and participation in a scientific paper/graduation thesis writing. Gaps in knowledge about plagiarism were identified among Palestinian medical students. Educators/trainers and other decision-makers in medical schools and higher academic institutions might use the strategies on which the students agreed to curb plagiarism.

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.