Search

The growing significance of social media in research demands new ethical standards and practices. Although a substantial body of literature on social media ethics exists, studies on the ethics of conducting research using social media are scarce. The emergence of new evidence sources, like social media, requires innovative methods and renewed consideration of research ethics. Therefore, we pose the following question: What are the defining characteristics of ethics papers on social media research? Following a modified version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, we analyzed 34 publications based on ten variables: author gender, publication year, region, academic discipline, type, design, methodology, social media platform in focus, positionality statement, and ethical issues. Our findings suggest contemporary social media research ethics primarily reflects the ethical ideals of the Global North, with limited representation from the Global South. Women authors have published more papers than men authors. Previous studies have prioritized ethical concerns such as privacy, informed consent, and anonymity while overlooking researchers' risks and the ethics of social media sites. We particularly emphasized the lack of researchers' positionality statements in research. Our findings will pave the way to understanding social media ethics better, especially with the rapid growth of social media research in global scholarship.

The two most popular decision-making processes are tossing a coin and playing rock, paper, scissors. In the activity described in this article, students find the theoretical probabilities of winning a coin toss and a round of the rock, paper, scissors game. They next devise strategies to win and test them out. Students then compare the theoretical probabilities they found with the experimental probabilities. The mathematical topics covered in this activity include calculating basic probability; understanding that for independent events A and B, P(A and B) = P(A) × P(B); recognizing a geometric series and applying the appropriate formula to find what it converges to; and understanding the meaning of descriptive statistics. Students were able to prove that although theoretically both games are fair in that they both give each of the two players a 50 percent chance of winning, several strategies can be employed to make each game unfair.

This essay uses the reprocessing of the "Luis Alberto Sánchez papers," the collection of a prominent Peruvian politician and author housed at Penn State University, to argue that ethical and reparative processing needs should be prioritized within an archives' overall extensible processing program. The author explores the tension between two differing threads within the archival literature of: (1) using minimal or extensible processing practices to efficiently process backlogs; and (2) of acknowledging the power of archivists in shaping the historical record and their ethical responsibilities towards communities represented within their collections. This essay argues that archivists should prioritize collections where archival practices have perpetuated in obfuscating or marginalizing the records of traditionally underrepresented communities. It also argues that prioritizing this work capitalizes on the inherent flexibility within an extensible processing framework.

Legal Literacies for Text Data Mining - Cross-Border (“LLTDM-X”) is a National Endowment for the Humanities Level 1 Advancement Grant project addressing legal and ethical issues faced by U.S. digital humanities (DH) practitioners whose text data mining (TDM) research and practice intersects with foreign-held or - licensed content, or involves international cooperations.LLTDM-X ​​is a collaboration between the University of California Berkeley Library and Internet Archive, and builds upon the previous NEH-sponsored institute, Building Legal Literacies for Text Data Mining (Building LLTDM). That institute provided guidance and strategies to DH TDM researchers on navigating legal literacies for text data mining (including copyright, contracts, privacy, and ethics) within a U.S. context.A common challenge highlighted during Building LLTDM was the fact that TDM practitioners encounter numerous and complex legal problems in cross-border TDM research. These occur when: (i) the materials practitioners want to mine are housed in a foreign jurisdiction, or are otherwise subject to foreign database licensing or laws; (ii) the human subjects they are studying or who created the underlying content reside in another country; or, (iii) the colleagues with whom they are collaborating reside abroad, yielding uncertainty about which country’s laws, agreements, and policies apply.We designed LLTDM-X to identify and better understand the cross-border issues that DH TDM practitioners face, with the aim of using these issues to inform prospective research and education. We also hoped that LLTDM-X would yield preliminary guidance to benefit researchers in the meantime, as instructional materials are being developed. In early 2023, we hosted a series of three online round tables with U.S.-based cross-border TDM practitioners (“Practitioners”), and law and ethics experts (“Experts”) practicing in six countries. The round table conversations were structured to illustrate the empirical issues that researchers face, and also for the Practitioners to benefit from guidance on legal and ethical challenges. Upon the completion of the round tables, the LLTDM-X project team created a robust and hypothetical case study that (i) reflects the observed cross-border LLTDM issues and (ii) contains analysis to facilitate the development of future instructional materials.

Recently, the Association of University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) published a White Paper on a multidimensional understanding of organizational structures for counseling centers (Mitchell, Oakley & Dunkle 2019). This article provided a historical overview of such structures, argued that there is no one optimal structure for all campuses, provided recommendations for factors to consider in related decision-making, and advocated for collaboration regardless of structure. The authors of this article extend the conversation by elaborating on some of the ethical issues involved in collaboration, as the White Paper did not address the limits of acceptability in such processes. Given that the authors are psychologists, we will be focusing on the Ethical Principles for Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017) of the American Psychological Association (APA). Similar language can be found in the ethical codes of other mental health professionals, and we note these sources as well.

The present review attempted to address the direction of plagiarism literature in Turkish context. 15 studies conducted in Turkey on plagiarism were analyzed through content analysis. The context, purposes, methodological issues and results of researching plagiarism were categorized. The findings of this review indicated that although plagiarism's raising legal and ethical concerns is acknowledged by Turkish researchers, there are limited numbers of studies exploring the plagiarism perceptions, views, situations and reasons of Turkish graduate students and professors.

Responsible conduct of research and ethical publishing practices are debatable issues in the higher education literature. The literature suggests that 'authorship disputes' are associated with multi-author paper publication and linked to ethical publishing practices. A few research studies argue authorship matters of a multi-author paper publication, but do not explain how to arrange author list meaningfully in a multi-author paper. How is a principal author of a multi-author paper to be decided? The literature also does not clarify whether language editor(s) could claim authorship for a research paper publication? The paper adopts qualitative methodology that subsumes descriptive, evaluative, and interpretative approaches to answer these questions. While answering these questions, the paper critically examines 'authorship disputes' and 'types of authorship' relating to research paper publication practices. At the end, the paper proposes a framework that would help to resolve authorship disputes over multi-author paper publication.

The present study is an attempt to discover whether Iraqi EFL College Students are aware of research plagiarism or they are not. To manage this study the researchers set three questions, aims, and hypotheses. Thus they prepare a questionnaire (of five domains and 25 items) to be conducted on 116 male and female fourth year students from department of English/College of Education/University of Kerbala. The results show that they are unaware of plagiarism because they are not acquainted with the right way of avoiding plagiarism. A t-test has been use to show whether there are differences between males and females, and the result shows no statistical difference. Moreover, a set of conclusions such as students are not acquainted with the right way of documentation because the textbook is relatively old, they don't have enough practical training in writing research paper. Finally, recommendations have been presented such as: The instructors (whether professors or teachers) should focus on the ethical considerations in writing papers, the textbook should be updated occasionally to match the need of the new academic publishing requirements.

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT has left people feeling ambivalent and disagreement among scholars, academicians, educators and the community at large prevails. While the artificial intelligence could potentially revolutionize how research is conducted and how research papers are written, a number of ethical concerns arise. In particular, the world of academia has reservations pertaining to whether this language model will actually do more good than harm, especially as far as academic writing is concerned. This paper argues that the cutting-edge technology is here to stay and the question is not whether to accept it, but rather, how to best utilize it judiciously, cautiously and responsibly to improve research performance by strictly adhering to academic integrity and transparency. Potential benefits and drawbacks of ChatGPT will be critically examined in light of current literature and, when relevant, potential solutions to the drawbacks will also be provided or commented on. Needless to say, the use of artificial intelligence in academic writing is still in its infancy and more discussion and debates pertaining to its use and merit are highly urged. This paper contributes to these on-going debates.

This paper provides an introduction to issues surrounding the participation rights of young people in research and the implications of their growing involvement in research as well as providing a discourse on the ethical implications related to consent. The unique contribution of this paper is that it considers children's rights in respect to the increasing opportunities for young people to take part in evaluation research. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to acknowledge the growing involvement for young people in research and the implications of ensuring that their rights of participation are respected. Secondly, we will consider the children's rights legislation and our obligations as researchers to implement this. Finally, we will explore consent as an issue in its own right as well as the practicalities of accessing participants. This paper will postulate that any research about young people should involve and prioritize at all stages of the research process; including participation in decision-making. We conclude by identifying five key principles, which we believe can help to facilitate the fulfilment of post-primary pupils' ability to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research.

Innovation and the development of knowledge in the field of scientific research is increasing exponentially, but it continues to be disjointed. It makes it difficult to keep up with state-of-the-art and to be at the forefront of research and dissemination, as well as to evaluate empirical evidence in the area of academic excellence. Recent literature reviews are frequently lacking in thoroughness and rigor and are carried out in part rather than using a specific design. This descriptive-mapping review aimed to illustrate plagiarism and research integrity literature published over a 10-year period (2010 to 2020). To achieve this goal, literature reviews were conducted to obtain relevant articles and documentation on plagiarism and its potential impact in the academic and publishing industries. Methodical searches in specific databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, including the Google Scholar Search Engine, have been undertaken to ensure the accuracy of the results. Thereafter, descriptive mapping was used to categorize qualifying articles. Over 350 titles were collected from the searches, of which 129 complete works were published in various journals during the covered period. Finally, in this review, 35 papers were eligible for inclusion. The themes were enumerated in the scholarly articles. Findings revealed a dearth of scientifically credible and relevant literature on plagiarism issues, such as the phenomenon in the academic environment, its particular specific factors and triggering causes, and the impacts of the institutional policy interventions being enforced. Although the results provided background information for the creation of a realistic guide to avoid plagiarism incidences, robust empirical and evaluative studies should be planned to identify the real implications of preventing plagiarism to uphold the credibility of scientific research and evaluate the impact of ethical issues, practices, and policies suggested by organizations and industries.

After 9/11, the academic study of terrorism flourished as more government resources were focused on counterterrorism efforts. As the focus slowly shifted towards P/CVE or Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, more and more articles lauded the potential benefits of including Formers. The idea behind that was that experience equals expertise. Formers have been valuable data sources as research participants. However, the current trend has seen Formers leave that role and take on far more complicated and sophisticated roles, such as deradicalization experts, claiming to help people leave extremism. This policy paper focuses on the evidence, specifically the lack of evidence, to support the prevailing assumptions regarding the effectiveness of Formers and dissects the ethical issues arising from their involvement in P/CVE. The paper ends with policy recommendations to shift P/CVE activities and research toward a more empirically-grounded model. Since P/CVE initiatives involve a variety of actors, from academic researchers to the media to practitioners, this paper is not aimed at one field or profession. Rather, it is intended for everyone involved in P/CVE-related activities, including research.

In recent years, there has been a hyper production of various scientific, professional papers, books that were available in paper or electronic form. The possibility for everyone to freely publish and be the author of works of different character brings its own challenge: how to publish a work that is original and does not infringe the copyrights of another author or another aspect of the problem: how to protect possible plagiarism of your works. The paper will analyze the rights of the authors of scientific and professional works, as a type of author's work, and the conditions of copyright that apply in the Republic of North Macedonia and in comparative law, including the most important international conventions. This paper intends to show that the researches that are done in different scientific fields need to be considered from an ethical point of view, that is, the code of ethics should be an element inseparable from the researches. Ethics in scientific - research work is of great importance in the context of the relevance of information, the conclusions reached by researchers and in general, when we talk about research, we imply ethical research. Furthermore, the concept of plagiarism, one of the biggest problems in scientific-research ethics and how plagiarism can be proven, will be analyzed. At the end, the measures that have been taken by the authors for the protection of copyrights also will be analyzed. In the course of the analysis, the (un)ethical aspects of the scientific-research work, the completion of infringing other people's copyrights, will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UC Berkeley Library secured a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities to support an Institute for Advanced Topics in the Digital Humanities to help key stakeholders to learn to better navigate legal issues in text data mining. UC Berkeley Library’s Office of Scholarly Communication Services led a national team from more than a dozen institutions and organizations to teach humanities researchers, librarians, and research staff how to confidently navigate the major legal issues that arise in text data mining research. Our institute was called Building Legal Literacies for Text Data Mining (Building LLTDM), and ran from June 23-26, 2020.This white paper describes the institute’s origins and goals, project overview and activities, and reflections and possible follow-on actions.

Summary: “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” -Potter Stewart.In their position paper, “Ethical Aspects of Artificially Administered Nutrition and Hydration: An ASPEN Position Paper”, [1] Schwartz et al. eloquently communicate key ethical concepts surrounding the care of patients receiving artificially administered nutrition and hydration (AANH). Ethically, all clinicians have the right and responsibility to provide nutrition-related access and resources to individuals in their care. At the same time, AANH is not always the right treatment to offer or provide.This revised position paper, published in Nutrition in Clinical Practice (NCP) in April 2021 [1], is the work of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) International Clinical Ethics Position Paper Update Workgroup. It represents a comprehensive update of the Ethics Position Paper of the ASPEN Ethics Position Paper Task Force, published in NCP in 2010. [2] The revised position paper includes a detailed discussion of important ethical considerations not covered in the 2010 paper: cancer and AANH, eating disorders and AANH, ethical considerations raised during the COVID-19 pandemic, and an international perspective on ethics and AANH. The position paper also references the Cartagena Declaration of 2019, which “stresses the recognition that nutrition care is a human right” [1,3] and comments that “extrapolating from this document, it appears to support resource allocation in a fair, transparent and consistent fashion” [1,3].This commentary summarizes the position paper and serves as a “call to action”. All medical professionals can and should engage in ethical aspects of AANH. Roles may vary depending on professional discipline and setting, but each interdisciplinary team member provides critical value. We also strongly encourage all readers to engage in conversations surrounding the topic of AANH and ethics: disseminating the principles in the position paper via local, regional, and national conference presentations, journal club discussions, grand rounds, and within the fundamental educational preparation of all clinicians involved in nutrition therapy practice.