Read by QxMD icon Read

Accountability in Research

Jaranit Kaewkungwal, Pornpimon Adams
Researchers designing and conducting studies using human data should consider the values and principles of ethical conduct. Research ethics committees (RECs) typically evaluate the ethical acceptability of research proposals. Sometimes, differences arise between how researchers and RECs interpret ethical principles, and how they decide what constitutes ethical conduct. This study aimed to explore the opinions of these two groups about the importance of core ethical issues in the proposal and in the informed-consent process...
April 16, 2019: Accountability in Research
Angelina Patrick Olesen, Latifah Amin, Zurina Mahadi, Maznah Ibrahim
The purpose of this study is to highlight the experiences of individuals who participate in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training program held at various universities in Malaysia. In response to a mailing request sent to forty individuals who had undertaken a RCR training program, fifteen participants agreed to be interviewed. The results of the study showed that the three main reasons for participating in the training were: anticipation for knowledge gained; personal experience with research misconduct; and establishing a new network of researchers...
April 13, 2019: Accountability in Research
Mark Yarborough
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
March 16, 2019: Accountability in Research
David B Resnik, Melissa Morales, Rachel Landrum, Min Shi, Jessica Minnier, Nicole A Vasilevsky, Robin E Champieux
Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences...
March 7, 2019: Accountability in Research
David B Resnik
Most accounts of research ethics focus on the importance of a handful of ethical and epistemological norms for the conduct of science, such as honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability, objectivity, collegiality, fairness, social responsibility, but have little to say about another, less well-known norm that also deserves attention: stewardship of research resources. Many of the behaviors and practices that are widely regarded as unethical or ethically questionable involve wasting or misusing money, time, and other resources...
March 1, 2019: Accountability in Research
Philip Lewis, Constanze Depp
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
February 14, 2019: Accountability in Research
Tamarinde Haven, Leonie van Grootel
The threat to reproducibility and the awareness that current rates of research misbehaviour may only reflect the 'tip of the iceberg' sparked initiatives to better academic science. One such initiative is preregistration of quantitative research. We investigate whether the preregistration format could also be used to boost the credibility of qualitative research. A crucial distinction underlying preregistration is that between prediction and postdiction. In qualitative research data is used to decide which way interpretation should move forward, using data to generate hypotheses and new research questions...
February 11, 2019: Accountability in Research
David B Resnik
U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be...
February 2019: Accountability in Research
Alastair Matheson
Much medical journal literature is developed by the pharmaceutical and device industries, sometimes with assistance from marketing agencies, writers, and academics. This literature is vulnerable to commercial bias. The publications trade issues self-regulatory ethical guidelines for its production, called "Good Publication Practice" (GPP). I evaluated the most recent iteration, GPP3. The most progressive recommendations in GPP3 call for complete publication of all clinical trials, and full data sharing...
February 2019: Accountability in Research
Mohammad Nurunnabi, Monirul Alam Hossain
In this commentary, we argue that plagiarism is not a new problem in academic publishing and data falsification in recent times has received a great attention globally. Due to lack of literature, the objective of this study is to evaluate data falsification and academic integrity. Accordingly, the study presents the academic misconduct (Falsification/Fabrication of data and Concerns/Issues About Data) case of Professor James E. Hunton, a former top ranked accounting professor from Bentley University. The study shows how research fraud/data falsification activity in the academic world lacks honesty and morality...
February 2019: Accountability in Research
M Khemiss, L Berrezouga, M Ben Khelifa, T Masmoudi, H Ben Saad
No previous North-African study has evaluated the university hospital doctors (UHDs) understanding of plagiarism (UP). This descriptive study aimed to assess UP among Tunisian UHDs. UHDs were recruited via electronic mails sent to all the Tunisian UHDs through the national health networks and by convenience sampling via a questionnaire provided directly to some UHDs. The French survey, available from the Laval University website, includes 11 questions related to UP, with three-choice answers (yes/no/may be)...
December 20, 2018: Accountability in Research
Hooi Yan See, Mohd Salim Mohamed, Siti Nurani Mohd Noor, Wah Yun Low
The review of clinical trials with human participants in Malaysia is governed by a decentralized control system. The clinical trial protocols are reviewed by 13 registered research ethics committees (RECs) in Malaysia. A governmental body, the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau, is responsible for the inspection and oversight of these registered RECs to ensure that they comply with the regulatory requirements. However, this study highlights that each REC in Malaysia has a different standard operating procedure and ethical review process...
December 11, 2018: Accountability in Research
Jarosław Wawer
The career of scientists often depends on the number of their published works. This fact leads to the overproduction of low-quality papers burying the important articles and making the knowledge less accessible. One of the methods to counteract these negative aspects might lie in the promotion of healthy trends in publishing behaviour. In the present work the theoretical analysis of a new bibliometric measure is presented and its potential impact on the publishing strategies is carefully discussed.
December 5, 2018: Accountability in Research
Angelina Patrick Olesen, Latifah Amin, Zurina Mahadi, Maznah Ibrahim
This study found that less than half of the respondents are willing to blow the whistle. The results reveal that a lack of protection with regard to the whistleblower's identity, the tedious investigative process, and the notion of avoiding confrontation, which is more apparent in Asian cultures as compared to the West, are among the reasons why individuals who witnessed misconduct chose to remain silent. Adhering to the Asian cultural upbringing where the young must respect the old, those of lower rank must obey those with higher authority, and subordinates do not question the actions of their superior, has become a norm even in the working environment...
November 29, 2018: Accountability in Research
Anam Fatima, Asad Abbas, Wan Ming, Samira Hosseini, Demi Zhu
AIMS: This study explores the effects of internal and external factors that encourage plagiarism from the perspective of students. METHODS: We collected student data from five public sector universities in Anhui Province, China, by randomly distributing survey questionnaires to 250 students, 176 of which were usable. We analyzed the collected quantitative data through multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Our research results demonstrate that external and internal factors have a great influence on plagiarism...
November 26, 2018: Accountability in Research
Alahí Dana Bianchini, Ignacio Mastroleo
In "An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies", Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).
October 10, 2018: Accountability in Research
Toshio Kuroki
Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP) and Questionable Research Practice (QRP) have been used worldwide in the classification of research misconduct. However, FFP comprises two distinct categories of misconduct: FF is extreme research misconduct that betrays truth, while P undermines trust of science community. Irreproducibility and inadequate practice of research also betray trust. Research misconduct has the potential to cause serious risk of safety in daily life. The proposed classification system is outlined as follows: Class I misconduct: Betrayal of the truth: (1) Fabrication and (2) Falsification...
October 2018: Accountability in Research
Zubin Master
No abstract text is available yet for this article.
October 2018: Accountability in Research
David M Shaw, Bernice S Elger
In this article, we identify and discuss several ethically problematic aspects of open access scientific publishing. We conclude that, despite some positive effects, paid open access has at least three unethical aspects: it discriminates against researchers, creates an editorial conflict of interest, and diverts funding from the actual conduct of research. To be truly open access, all researchers must be able to access its benefits.
October 2018: Accountability in Research
Julie Morton
This article analyzes how a formal text (the Ethics Review Form) available at National Health Service Research Ethics Committees (NHSRECs) in the United Kingdom was used in meetings. Derived from the work of Dorothy Smith on incorporating texts into institutional ethnography (IE), it proposes the concept of "text work" as a way into understanding more about decision-making in ethics review and describes the extent to which this formal text shaped and influenced review work. The research study used observations of committee meetings, field-notes and interviews to produce an ethnographic mapping of Research Ethics Committees' (RECs) work...
October 2018: Accountability in Research
Fetch more papers »
Fetching more papers... Fetching...
Read by QxMD. Sign in or create an account to discover new knowledge that matter to you.
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"