Search

Scientific integrity stands as a fundamental principle and benchmark for the conduct of research and the dissemination of scholarly content. The objective of this research aims to explore the impact of research, new and emerging areas of research, and to identify potential research collaborators and journals of scientific integrity for scholarly publishing over the last 20 years. Utilizing data sourced from the Scopus database, this research gathers publications linked to scientific integrity in scholarly publishing spanning from 2004 to 2023. These records were subjected to bibliometric analysis through Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The findings indicate that research articles are the predominant mode of publication, constituting a substantial 67.27% of the total. Moreover, this content has been contributed by a diverse group of 2,596 authors. The Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics distinguishes itself with an outstanding record of publishing 62 articles and an impressive H-index of 19. The USA possesses the most extensive collaborative network, followed by Australia and the United Kingdom. Another significant discovery from this research underscores that over 20 years, dominant research trends have revolved around topics concerning scientific integrity, such as academic integrity, research integrity, and research misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Scientific integrity stands as a fundamental principle and benchmark for the conduct of research and the dissemination of scholarly content. The objective of this research aims to explore the impact of research, new and emerging areas of research, and to identify potential research collaborators and journals of scientific integrity for scholarly publishing over the last 20 years. Utilizing data sourced from the Scopus database, this research gathers publications linked to scientific integrity in scholarly publishing spanning from 2004 to 2023. These records were subjected to bibliometric analysis through Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The findings indicate that research articles are the predominant mode of publication, constituting a substantial 67.27% of the total. Moreover, this content has been contributed by a diverse group of 2,596 authors. The Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics distinguishes itself with an outstanding record of publishing 62 articles and an impressive H-index of 19. The USA possesses the most extensive collaborative network, followed by Australia and the United Kingdom. Another significant discovery from this research underscores that over 20 years, dominant research trends have revolved around topics concerning scientific integrity, such as academic integrity, research integrity, and research misconduct.

In this article, I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs.

The core insight of this thoughtful and provocative article is that science has become engineering and must be re-governed appropriately. Science today is as much artefact constructing as it is knowledge-producing. Certified knowledge is found through certified construction; science has become technoscience. As such, received practices of and models for governance need re-examining. It is not possible here to address the full range of insights and questions that René von Schomberg’s challenging paper puts on the table. His argument is clearly the outgrowth of years of critical reflection in the science policy trenches of the European Commission. I would wager that there’s no one who has thought longer, harder, and at greater depth about these issues. I will concentrate my comments on the question concerning engineering.

Von Schomberg’s call to place mutual responsiveness – which I understand as the ability of researchers and the research system as a whole to foster meaningful exchanges and learn from novel experiences, no matter where those originate – at the core of Open Science and related efforts to reform the scientific landscape is both timely and significant. Widespread sharing is not enough to guarantee responsible and inclusive research, nor are vague appeals to improve research culture, whatever it is that such culture may turn out to include (Leonelli, 2023). Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions under which sharing materials, methods and insights – and debating the goals and directions towards which these may be put to use – may improve research exchange, communication and scrutiny, resulting in scientific outputs that are both reliable and socially responsive. Hence von Schomberg’s focus on the interplay between institutional and behavioural features of science and his plea for a reform in governance structures, such as initiated by COARA, are very well-taken. He is, however, too quick to dismiss the importance of some degree of autonomy for those involved in creating knowledge. To show why this matters, I here briefly discuss two of von Schomberg’s additional claims: (1) his focus on ‘knowledge actors’ as the protagonists of research efforts; and (2) his critique of the effectiveness of self-governance efforts by researchers.

Von Schomberg offers a compelling examination of key open science principles and their potential role in fostering responsible research and innovation (RRI). Utilizing Merton's Ethos of Science framework, the paper constructs a series of arguments supporting a central thesis: “the transition towards open science is vital to facilitate RRI.” This transition necessitates significant institutional reforms within the scientific community and adjustments to incentive structures that promote the adoption of open and mutually responsive practices. The manuscript reframes the discourse surrounding responsibility and responsiveness in light of the evolving landscape of open science, shifting the focus from normative commitments to actionable frameworks in research and open science practices. Overall, the position paper strives to bridge the gap between idealised models of scientific communities based on RRI principles and the reality of actual scientific endeavour (Anderson et al., 2007; Politi, 2021, 2024). However, it is important to acknowledge certain omissions that could enrich the analysis. Firstly, a more comprehensive examination of the profound crisis facing science amidst the increasing marketisation and commodification of academia and research would provide valuable context beyond discussions of system failures related to productivity and reproducibility. Secondly, a more nuanced and critical approach to conceptualising open science would enrich the discussion, considering its multifaceted nature and potential pitfalls. Thirdly, the validity of the Mertonian framework and its selective analysis of values, particularly its exclusive focus on the norm of communism. Lastly, a deeper exploration of the challenges and promises inherent in the pursuit of responsible Open Science within ongoing institutional processes.

It is hard to disagree with the thrust of René von Schomberg’s position paper. It is driven by the worry that current conceptions of “open science” are all too impoverished – that they need to be complemented by the social practice of “mutual responsiveness”. In terms of political theory or notions of democracy, on the one hand, in terms of socially relevant research practice, on the other hand, only an ambitious commitment to open science will be robust enough to make a difference and contribute to the solution of pressing problems. In contrast, it is paying lip service only to the ideal of openness when “open science” becomes reduced to “open access publishing” or data storage rituals. As von Schomberg shows, this might actually deepen disparities and redundancies within dysfunctional science.

René von Schomberg’s article (von Schomberg, 2024) makes an invigorating case for the co-responsibility of societal actors to give direction to the pursuit of science. In this reply, I wish to endorse his position as a much-needed reconceptualisation in the face of societal challenges and internal scientific developments. At the same time, I urge that there remain theoretical and practical intricacies in attempting to steer science.

Personal comment on the responses to “Towards a New Ethos of Science or a Reform of the Institution of Science? Merton Revisited and the Prospects of Institutionalizing the Research Values of Openness and Mutual Responsiveness” by René von Schomberg.

Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as representative sample and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods.

As applied and agricultural economists, Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA) members work to provide high quality research and data to inform policy decisions. How do we ensure that decision makers see, and use, our research findings or data in the policy formulation process that includes many actors? The paper provides a framework for how information flows during the policy process and a strategy for effective research and data built around five equally important attributes: relevance; quality; trust; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and communication. Examples illustrate how the attributes lead to high impact information and focus on two federal research and statistics agencies, the Economic Research Service and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The paper concludes with strategies and examples of metrics to measure the impact of research and statistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its public visibility and impact on policy, the activity of expert communication rarely receives more than a passing mention in codes of scientific integrity. This paper makes the case for an ethics of expert communication, introducing a framework where expert communication is represented as an intrinsically ethical activity of a deliberative agent. Ethical expert communication cannot be ensured by complying with various requirements, such as restricting communications to one's area of expertise or disclosing conflicts of interest. Expert communication involves morally laden trade‐offs that must be weighed by a deliberative agent. A basic normative framework is introduced, and concrete provisions are proposed for codes of scientific integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, there is no standard for the citation of food composition data. This leads to the questions: how are food and nutrient data cited in research papers, and are they presented in a way that allows studies to be reproduced? To answer these questions, we performed a review of the literature and quantified the accuracy and completeness of data citations from publications (January to December 2020) in the top 5 nutrition journals as ranked by the Scimago Journal Rankings. We then performed a review of citation guidelines currently in place in other disciplines. Similar to the requirement of completing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for systematic reviews, we have developed a comprehensive data citation checklist, the Comprehensive Food Data Citation (CFDC) checklist. The CFDC checklist was developed through a benchmarking assessment against established data citation standards. Its purpose is to establish a standardized, best-practice approach for reporting food composition data. The CFDC checklist has been designed to cater to both publishers and authors, ensuring consistency and accuracy in food composition data reporting. The CFDC checklist is also available as an interactive citation generator to facilitate the adoption of consistent and comprehensive citation of food composition data and is available at https://www.nutrientinstitute.org/cfdc. Despite general agreement that accurate data citation is paramount, this is the first citation standard specifically developed to capture food composition data. Because food composition data are the foundation of nutrition research, our proposed guidelines aim to provide the field with a much-needed foundation for acknowledging and sharing data in a way that fosters reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing).

Copyright of Revista Colombiana de Bioetica is the property of Universidad El Bosque and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When researchers are sufficiently resourced to conduct research and communicate their findings, the knowledge produced can benefit the environment and society through policy. However, interference with the research process and its subsequent knowledge mobilization (“interference in science”) has been observed in several countries, particularly for environmental researchers. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed environmental researchers in Canada (n = 741) to investigate the perceived prevalence, source, and effects of interference and considered whether these perceptions differ by region, career stage, research area, and membership in any scientific society. Although over half of researchers were not restricted from speaking to the media (54%), and most had never been asked to make “undue modifications” to their work (84%), the vast majority (92%) reported at least some degree of interference in their work during their careers. Consequences of interference were more prevalent among early-career researchers and included negative impacts on job satisfaction, mental health, and undue modification to work leading to inaccurate or incomplete science communication. Although environmental researchers in Canada deem themselves overall better able to conduct and communicate their work than under previous federal governments, reports of ongoing political interference remain concerning. We recommend increased support for researchers and further investigations into interference.

Abstract We consider scientific integrity to constitute a new theory of morality of science, in a very specific deontological sense. Indeed, at least in practice, scientific integrity extends beyond scientific concerns, seeking to develop specific moral duties and/or procedures based on general moral values and/or standards, leading to common moral frameworks for usual scientific practices. This is, of course, necessary. Contemporary history has shown us only too well that usual scientific practices need common moral frameworks, especially in medicine and biology. However, like scientific practices, and medical and biological practices in particular, the persistence of certain moral values and/or standards and the priority attributed to them, can change significantly, due to changes in society, people, the times and/or environments, and they may be under strong tension. We therefore believe that a new theory of ethics of science, in a very specific teleological sense, may be required in this case, particularly in medicine and biology, in addition to scientific integrity. This ethical theory, through research, professionals and structures in ethics of science— also called medical ethics, research ethics or bioethics in the fields of medicine and biology—, should seek to identify and find specific ethical solutions to these tensions, applicable at a particular place and time, based on common ethical purposes and/or consequences. As a result, these specific ethical solutions may, or may not, lead to an evolution of common moral frameworks, which may, or may not, be developed on the basis of scientific integrity. In the fields of medicine and biology, this ethical theory is closely related to another theory, global bioethics, but with a number of new conceptual and methodological developments.

Simple Summary: Animals have been used in research for various purposes, ranging from animal, agricultural, wildlife, environmental and medical sciences to education and training. The ethical and humane use of animals for scientific purposes is often referred to animal research ethics. The latter has matured substantially over the past decades, so that it has become a cornerstone for responsible conduct of research. Scientific studies using animals are diverse and specialized in nature, and the intricacy of animal welfare and other key ethical aspects to be considered has also become expansive and complex, requiring a simplified, birds-eye view model, here called the 12Rs Framework, to guide all stakeholders between key considerations and fostering ethical integrity. Furthermore, the framework takes into account local context, legal requirements, values, and cultures, rendering it universally applicable. In fact, the 12 Rs framework can be a useful tool to promote, facilitate and harmonize the ethical conduct in the use of animals for scientific purposes across the world, almost like a mind map to navigate a complex but essential arena of research ethics. Animal research ethics and animal welfare in science have become progressively tightly regulated, and ethical integrity and scientific quality, as well as social responsiveness and responsibility have become key requirements for research to be approved, funded, published, and accepted. The multitude of factors to contemplate has in some instances not only become complex, requiring a team approach, but often perceived as confusing and overwhelming. To facilitate a process of simplistic yet comprehensive conceptualization, we developed the 12 Rs Framework to act as a mind map to guide scientists, oversight structures, and other stakeholders through the myriad of ethical considerations. It unfolds into three domains of twelve encompassing ethical principles, values, and other considerations, including the animal welfare, social values, and scientific integrity domains, whilst also recognizing the diversity of local context, legal requirements, values, and cultures around the globe. In the end, it can be seen as a unifying ethical framework to foster and promote animal research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Education & Law Review / Revista de Educación y Derecho is the property of Revista de Educacion y Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We consider scientific integrity to constitute a new theory of morality of science, in a very specific deontological sense. Indeed, at least in practice, scientific integrity extends beyond scientific concerns, seeking to develop specific moral duties and/or procedures based on general moral values and/or standards, leading to common moral frameworks for usual scientific practices. This is, of course, necessary. Contemporary history has shown us only too well that usual scientific practices need common moral frameworks, especially in medicine and biology. However, like scientific practices, and medical and biological practices in particular, the persistence of certain moral values and/or standards and the priority attributed to them, can change significantly, due to changes in society, people, the times and/or environments, and they may be under strong tension. We therefore believe that a new theory of ethics of science, in a very specific teleological sense, may be required in this case, particularly in medicine and biology, in addition to scientific integrity. This ethical theory, through research, professionals and structures in ethics of science— also called medical ethics, research ethics or bioethics in the fields of medicine and biology—, should seek to identify and find specific ethical solutions to these tensions, applicable at a particular place and time, based on common ethical purposes and/or consequences. As a result, these specific ethical solutions may, or may not, lead to an evolution of common moral frameworks, which may, or may not, be developed on the basis of scientific integrity. In the fields of medicine and biology, this ethical theory is closely related to another theory, global bioethics, but with a number of new conceptual and methodological developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This work aims to analyze failures in scientific integrity on the part of Latin American research personnel. Methodology: anonymous and voluntary questionnaires were carried out after dealing with this topic in 121 scientific writing courses/thesis workshops in Latin America, mainly in Argentina, for 20 years (2001-2020). Results: The 2064 valid responses showed that 60% had five or more years of graduation, 48.6% indicated improper co-authorship, and 28.9% that their name was omitted from publications. 24.9% acknowledged having omitted their name from publications. Some 24.9% acknowledged having committed some misconduct in their career. The coercion to which he was subjected to do so was recognized by 56.7%. 60.7 % of the 512 people were unaware that it was a mistake. Misconduct was the most frequent misconduct (46 %), followed by plagiarism and misrepresentation of data. In first-hand accounts, salami publication, data duplication, theft, bribery, and image manipulation stand out. None of the persons who took previous bioethics training courses (0/560) committed inappropriate acts of their own accord. Conclusion: scientific personnel commits a relatively high percentage of scientific integrity failures; providing scientific integrity courses has a decisive role in self-monitoring to avoid them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Praxis Pedagogica is the property of Corporacion Universitaria Minuto de Dios and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

At present, the issue of scientific research integrity has become a hot issue of common concern to academia and the public, and scientific research personnel' research misconduct has always been the focus prevention area of scientific research integrity, so it is the key to prevent and curb breach of trust from the source. This study conducts semi-structured interviews with 26 scientific researchers, uses rooted theories to encode the original data, and constructs an analysis framework for theinfluencing factors of scientific research credibility from four dimensions: scientific research literacy, personal literacy, resource environment and institutional policies. Research shows that the personal accomplishment and scientific research literacy of scientific researchers are internal driving factors that directly determine the frequency and intensity of their scientific research dishonesty behaviour. The resource environment and system policy are external driving factors that indirectly affect the scientific research credibility of scientific researchers. The research results provide countermeasures and ideas for further standardising the behaviour of scientific researchers and creating a healthy academic environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC's and ICNIRP's exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic study and the applied use of agent-based modelling of social processes has matured considerably over the last thirty years. The time is now right to engage seriously with the ethics and responsible practice of agent-based social simulation. In this paper, we first outline the many reasons why it is appropriate to explore an ethics of agent-based modelling and how ethical issues arise in its practice and organisation. We go on to discuss different approaches to standardisation as a way of supporting responsible practice. Some of the main conclusions are organised as provisions in a draft code of ethics. We intend for this draft to be further developed by the community before being adopted by individuals and groups within the field informally or formally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific integrity is the most important aspect that higher education institutions have to take care of, as it conveys credibility and acceptance of science to the public. Although science has a very powerful built-in self-regulation process for detecting and correcting scientific misconduct, there is a need for clear guidelines that have to be adapted on regular intervals to the rapidly changing world caused by scientific developments themselves. Outlined here are recent advances in how Switzerland increases awareness and transparency of scientific misconduct and how it handles cases of misconduct to improve the quality of science., (Copyright 2024 Christian J. Leumann. License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

COVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted, and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with 10 recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media, and the research communities.

The discovery of efficacious treatment options for neuropsychiatric conditions is a process that remains in jeopardy. Contributing to the failure of clinical trials, a strong positive bias exists in the reported results of preclinical studies, including in the field of neuroscience. However, despite clear recognition of major factors that lead to bias, efforts to address them have not made much meaningful change, receiving inadequate attention from the scientific community. In truth, little real-world value is currently attached to efforts made to oppose positive bias, and instead—partially driven by competitive conditions—the opposite has become true. Since pressures throughout our system of scientific discovery, particularly those tied to definitions of individual success, hold these damaging practices firmly in place, we urgently need to make changes to the system itself. Such a transformation should include a pivot away from explicit or tacit requirements for statistical significance and clean narratives, particularly in publishing, and should promote a priori power calculations as the determinant of final sample size. These systemic changes must be reinforced and upheld in responsible decisions made by individual scientists concerning the planning, analysis, and presentation of their own research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists’ perspectives, including research participants'. 1873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data: p-hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g. p-hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3–81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4–80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud (18.7%), raising concerns about data quality. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite the ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others’) that researchers may be violating participants' expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.

The discovery of efficacious treatment options for neuropsychiatric conditions is a process that remains in jeopardy. Contributing to the failure of clinical trials, a strong positive bias exists in the reported results of preclinical studies, including in the field of neuroscience. However, despite clear recognition of major factors that lead to bias, efforts to address them have not made much meaningful change, receiving inadequate attention from the scientific community. In truth, little real-world value is currently attached to efforts made to oppose positive bias, and instead—partially driven by competitive conditions—the opposite has become true. Since pressures throughout our system of scientific discovery, particularly those tied to definitions of individual success, hold these damaging practices firmly in place, we urgently need to make changes to the system itself. Such a transformation should include a pivot away from explicit or tacit requirements for statistical significance and clean narratives, particularly in publishing, and should promote a priori power calculations as the determinant of final sample size. These systemic changes must be reinforced and upheld in responsible decisions made by individual scientists concerning the planning, analysis, and presentation of their own research.

The number of publishers that offer academics, researchers, and postgraduate students the opportunity to publish articles and book chapters quickly and easily has been growing steadily in recent years. This can be ascribed to a variety of factors, e.g., increasing Internet use, the Open Access movement, academic pressure to publish, and the emergence of publishers with questionable interests that cast doubt on the reliability and the scientific rigor of the articles they publish.All this has transformed the scholarly and scientific publishing scene and has opened the door to the appearance of journals whose editorial procedures differ from those of legitimate journals. These publishers are called predatory, because their manuscript publishing process deviates from the norm (very short publication times, non-existent or low-quality peer-review, surprisingly low rejection rates, etc.).The object of this article is to spell out the editorial practices of these journals to make them easier to spot and thus to alert researchers who are unfamiliar with them. It therefore reviews and highlights the work of other authors who have for years been calling attention to how these journals operate, to their unique features and behaviors, and to the consequences of publishing in them.The most relevant conclusions reached include the scant awareness of the existence of such journals (especially by researchers still lacking experience), the enormous harm they cause to authors' reputations, the harm they cause researchers taking part in promotion or professional accreditation procedures, and the feelings of chagrin and helplessness that come from seeing one's work printed in low-quality journals. Future comprehensive research on why authors decide to submit valuable articles to these journals is also needed.This paper therefore discusses the size of this phenomenon and how to distinguish those journals from ethical journals.

Until the 1990s, the most used research and teaching materials for economists were print journal articles and print books. Since the Internet was commercialized in the 1990s, economists have used digital technologies in research and teaching. Journal articles and books are now more easily accessed. Online subscription systems allow economists to acquire electronic study and research materials in real time. Researchers can access a wealth of teaching and research materials freely and openly. In this essay [1], I focus on Wilfred Dolfsma and Ioana Negru’s The Ethical Formation of Economists (Dolfsma and Negru 2019) and claim that digital economics research requires a global understanding of ethics consistent with the values of scholarly practices. In the absence of scientific ethics, digital tools and software can harm the members of scholarly communities internationally and become a source of scientific misconduct. Economics should be taught as part of a system of scientific ethics.

Several independent findings about the current state of the environment and water management in the Murray-Darling Basin were released in early 2019 by the South Australia Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, the Australian Productivity Commission, and the Australian Academy of Science. We review these findings in relation to: an environmentally sustainable level of water diversions, as mandated in the Australian Water Act 2007; Sovereign Indigenous water rights and interests; the economics of water recovery to increase stream and river flows; and water governance. After reviewing the independent findings and the responses by government agencies, we propose the following actions to respond to post-truth: (1) instituting greater transparency in measurements of water use, consumption, storage and return flows and also of water values (market and non-market); (2) using deliberative democracy, engaging in more effective and inclusive participation in decision-making in terms of water planning and allocations, especially of those who have been long excluded such as the First Peoples of Australia; and (3) giving primacy to the environmental goals of the Water Act 2007 and supporting this through the establishment of an independent standing commission which reports to the Australian parliament and has audit and oversight powers in relation to land, water and the environment.

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While the responsible use of AI brings many innovations and benefits to science and humanity, its unethical use poses a serious threat to scientific integrity and literature. Even in the absence of malicious use, the Chatbot output itself, as a software application based on AI, carries the risk of containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations and plagiarism. Therefore, the use of complex AI algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency and accountability, requiring the development of new ethical rules to protect scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the development and writing of ethical codes cannot keep up with the pace of development and implementation of technology. The main purpose of this narrative review is to inform readers, authors, reviewers and editors about new approaches to publication ethics in the era of AI. It specifically focuses on tips on how to disclose the use of AI in your manuscript, how to avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, and current standards for retraction., Competing Interests: The author has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Digital phenotyping, or personal sensing, is a field of research that seeks to quantify traits and characteristics of people using digital technologies, usually for health care purposes. In this commentary, we discuss emerging ethical issues regarding the use of social media as training data for artificial intelligence (AI) models used for digital phenotyping. In particular, we describe the ethical need for explicit consent from social media users, particularly in cases where sensitive information such as labels related to neurodiversity are scraped. We also advocate for the use of community-based participatory design principles when developing health care AI models using social media data., (©Aditi Jaiswal, Aekta Shah, Christopher Harjadi, Erik Windgassen, Peter Washington. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 17.07.2024.)

Scientific integrity is defined as the condition that occurs when individuals adhere to accepted standards, professional values, and practices of the relevant scientific community. This study aims to investigate the influential factors on the scientific integrity in scholarly publishing of researchers in Thailand. The questionnaire was delivered to a sample size of 398 top researchers who had high citations and h-index recorded in the Scopus database during the past 5 years, 316 responses were returned. The findings confirm that there are five factors that affect scientific integrity in scholarly publishing: university/faculty requirements/policies, university support, aspects of publishing, publisher aspects, and researcher-related factors. It is evident that establishing a process and criteria for authorship agreement and verification, as well as dedicating offices or units within the university to address research integrity concerns and provide support to researchers, exhibit the highest factor loading values. The findings ensure that scientific integrity stands out as a top priority for researchers linked with prominent research universities in Thailand. To tackle this challenge, it is recommended for the universities to prioritize initiatives aimed at enhancing researchers’ ethical awareness and nurturing scientific integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science and knowledge service, employing a substantial staff of scientists devoted to conducting research to provide independent scientific advice for EU policy. Focussed on various research areas aligned with EU priorities, the JRC excels in delivering scientific evidence for policymaking and has published numerous science-for-policy reports and scientific articles. Drawing on a scientific integrity statement, surveys among JRC’s research staff, and thematic discussions with JRC’s research leaders, the JRC has developed a comprehensive Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics (SIRE) framework, including instruments, procedures, and guidelines to ensure high standards and independence in its research. Key components of the SIRE framework include a Scientific Integrity Officer, an Editorial Review Board, a Research Ethics Board, and guidelines for responsible conduct of research. This article provides an overview of the JRC’s SIRE framework and how it was developed, emphasising the importance of maintaining independence, integrity, and ethics in scientific research that supports EU policy. The article also discusses potential gaps in the framework and where additional efforts may be needed, comparing with the recent U.S. National Science and Technology Council report on Protecting the Integrity of Government Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allegations like “proven genetic reason for homosexuality” or “proven inefficacy of sexual orientation change efforts” are put forward at popular science educational events for scientifically unsophisticated people. In this article I will demonstrate that modern academia is dominated by persons who project their socio-political views into their scientific activity, making scientific process strongly biased. These projected views include a spectrum of political claims, including those with regard to non-heterosexual individuals, and namely that “homosexuality is a normative variation of sexuality among humans as well as animals”, that “same-sex attraction is inborn and cannot be changed”, that “gender is a social construct not limited to binary classification”, and so forth. In this paper it will be demonstrated that such views in modern academia are considered orthodox, steadfast and settled, even when there is lack of convincing scientific background, whereas alternative views are instantly labeled “pseudoscientific” and “false” even when there is a certain factology behind. One could mention many factors as the reason for this bias – dramatic social and historical legacy which led to the emergence of “scientific taboos”, intense political struggle that gave rise to hypocrisy, “commercialization” of science, leading to the pursuit of sensations, etc. Whether it is possible to completely avoid bias in science remains a controversial issue. However, it is possible to create conditions for an optimal equidistant scientific process.

In November 2018 The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU) celebrated the 100-year anniversary. However, there is not time for triumph. The number of collaborators involved in the scientific research, according to government statistics, decreased by almost a third during the 2014–2017 period, expenditures on scientific research (in the calculation of percentages from to GDP) for the same period fell fourfold.Demographic problems and increase of labor migration have led to difficulties with the recruitment of students, resulting in poor school readiness, school graduates want to study “prestigious professions”, compromising these professions themselves. This processes of studying at a high school often acquires the character of imitation.One more painful problem is the reduction of the level of master’s, candidate’s and doctoral dissertations on the background of a decrease in the number of successful defense of these theses. That is, many post-graduate students use post-graduate (doctoral) courses counterproductively, without completing their preparation of competitive scientific work. The generally recognized “disease” of a national high school is its weak link with various labor markets and scientific researches. The same problems, only in other versions and variations, relate to Ukrainian “great science”. The main reasons for academic integrity and academic disintegrity can be differentiated into the following categories: worldview; morally-ethical; religious; philosophical and methodological; political; legal; social; technical-technological.In this article the main philosophical and methodological aspect of educational and scientific integrity is analyzed, the crisis of which can be largely explained by the relativism of the postmodern worldview. There are underlined demarcations between different aspects of solving this complex problem: philosophical, ideological, moral, legal, administrative etc.

Challenging anyone who spreads falsehoods is an important part of respecting the truth in both science and the wider world.