Search

The article is devoted to the anniversary of the prominent Russian scholar in library science Margarita Yakovlevna Dvorkina, born on April 1, 1936. The author highlights her main positive qualities as a person and scientist. Her exceptional scientific integrity is revealed by the example of M.Y. Dvorkinaʼs clarification over time of the attitude to revolutionary-democratic libraries (the theme of her PhD thesis) and especially to the status of the concept of “library service”. She successfully defended her doctoral dissertation on this topic in 1994. Initially, she confined to the named scope of the concept, then she deemed more correct to consider “information and library services”, and now she inclines to the term “library and information services”. The author assumes that the next round of the scientific spiral should be return on a new basis to the term and to the concept “library service” behind it. The article presents arguments to defend this position.

Benefit–cost analysis (BCA) provides important science to inform regulatory decision-making. Ideally, the BCA should be based on science, including economics. However, the prominent role of...

Leamer's 1983 paper Let's Take the Con out of Econometrics is credited with ushering in the Credibility revolution in economics. Since that point, many fields including economics have been found to harbor a large number of papers littered with QRPs, unreplicable results, literatures replete with evidence for publication bias, and so on. One potential driver of unreliable science is obeisance to arbitrary significance criteria; a recently proposed solution is to scale critical values to control the rate of false positives. We aim to assess, using all preprints uploaded to the NBER preprint server until March 2020, whether the economic literature yields significant results with this solution in mind. In addition, we aim to assess the evidence for a number of QRPs.

The goal of this project is to perform a meta-analysis on educational efforts to promote a responsible conduct of research from 1990 to early 2020. Unlike previous reviews that were exploratory in nature, this review aims to test twelve hypotheses on successful training strategies. Some of these assumptions have been suggested by the findings from previous reviews. We want to test their robustness. Other hypotheses stand in contradiction to the assertions of previous reviews because we question their assumptions. This review is not only innovative in the way that pursues the verification of falsifiable assumptions though. Additionally, it applies a stricter understanding of what comprises a course on the responsible conduct of research. From 66 studies included in a previous meta-analysis on the responsible conduct of research (Watts et al., 2017), only 28 studies fulfil our definition, because the remaining studies did not concern questions of research conduct but only pertained to professional behavior (e.g., as military officers, nurses, or engineers). Unlike another previous review, we also excluded studies that only concerned academic integrity. There is some overlap between correct citation and the responsible conduct of research. However, citation prevention is primarily technical and is too narrow to be considered representative of RCR training. Despite our narrow focus on RCR training, we identified 72 studies for inclusion through a combination of different search strategies – a number that justifies a quantitative meta-analysis and promises new findings, due to our focus on the testing of hypotheses and the inclusion of 24 studies that have not been considered in previous reviews.

A university-wide online survey assessing the research integrity culture in a value-driven fashion

Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s). 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.

Considering the concept of plagiarism as the appropriation or expropriation of copyright, the idea of ​​authorship is questioned in a largely digital society, marked by productivism, whose quantity, quality and recognition of research carried out and published in the academic environment often involve ethical violations. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to present the results achieved in a survey carried out in 2019 on the perception of undergraduate students enrolled in Scientific Initiation and Postgraduate programs at the Federal University of Sergipe (UFS) on Academic Plagiarism, which is a current and necessary debate, which has been widely discussed in the world academic scenario, but which, even with considerable advances, is still lacking at the national level. The research carried out, of an exploratory-descriptive nature, was based on a convenience sampling and considered as a research instrument the application of an online questionnaire, through the Google Forms platform. Based on the results obtained, it was found that undergraduates who do scientific initiation and postgraduates at UFS have few and superficial notions about plagiarism, especially from a theoretical and conceptual point of view, ignoring its specificities, forms of manifestation and the legislation or current and guiding documents on this phenomenon. Although this is a recurring theme nowadays in several spaces, there are still uncertainties about a practice so harmful to intellectual property and scientific integrity, which interferes in the construction of knowledge through specialized research. Considerando el concepto de plagio como la apropiación o expropiación de los derechos de autor, la idea de autoría es cuestionada en una sociedad mayoritariamente digital, marcada por el productivismo, cuya cantidad, calidad y reconocimiento de las investigaciones realizadas y publicadas en el ámbito académico implican a menudo violaciones éticas. Así, el objetivo principal de este trabajo es presentar los resultados alcanzados en una encuesta realizada en 2019 sobre la percepción de los estudiantes de pregrado matriculados en los programas de Iniciación Científica y Postgrado de la Universidad Federal de Sergipe (UFS) sobre el Plagio Académico, que es un debate actual y necesario, que ha sido ampliamente discutido en el escenario académico mundial, pero que, incluso con avances considerables, todavía está ausente a nivel nacional. La investigación realizada, de carácter exploratorio-descriptivo, se basó en un muestreo de conveniencia y consideró como instrumento de investigación la aplicación de un cuestionario online, a través de la plataforma Google Forms. Con base en los resultados obtenidos, se encontró que los estudiantes de licenciatura que hacen iniciación científica y de posgrado en la UFS tienen pocas y superficiales nociones sobre el plagio, especialmente desde el punto de vista teórico y conceptual, ignorando sus especificidades, formas de manifestación y la legislación o documentos vigentes y orientadores sobre este fenómeno. A pesar de ser un tema recurrente hoy en día en varios espacios, todavía existen incertidumbres sobre una práctica tan perjudicial para la propiedad intelectual y la integridad científica, que interfiere en la construcción del conocimiento a través de la investigación especializada. Tendo em vista o conceito de plágio como a apropriação ou expropriação de direitos autorais, questiona-se a ideia de autoria em uma sociedade amplamente digital, marcada pelo produtivismo, cuja quantidade, qualidade e reconhecimento das pesquisas realizadas e publicadas no ambiente acadêmico envolvem muitas vezes infrações éticas. Desta forma, o presente artigo tem como objetivo principal apresentar os resultados alcançados em uma pesquisa realizada em 2019 sobre a percepção dos estudantes de graduação inseridos em programas de Iniciação Científica e de Pós-graduação da Universidade Federal de Sergipe (UFS) sobre o Plágio Acadêmico, sendo este um debate atual e necessário, que vem sendo amplamente discutido no cenário acadêmico mundial, mas que, mesmo com avanços consideráveis, ainda é lacunar no âmbito nacional. A pesquisa realizada, de cunho exploratório-descritivo, baseou-se em uma amostragem por conveniência e considerou como instrumento de pesquisa a aplicação de um questionário on-line, por meio da plataforma Google Formulários. A partir dos resultados obtidos, constatou-se que graduandos que fazem iniciação científica e pós-graduandos da UFS possuem poucas e superficiais noções sobre o plágio, sobretudo do ponto de vista teórico e conceitual, desconhecendo suas especificidades, formas de manifestação e a legislação ou documentos vigentes e norteadores sobre esse fenômeno. Ainda que essa seja uma temática recorrente na atualidade em diversos espaços, ainda há incertezas sobre uma prática tão nociva à propriedade intelectual e à integridade científica, que interfere na construção do conhecimento através da pesquisa especializada.

Fraudulent papers from paper mills are a serious threat to the entire scientific community. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology has become the target of a massive attack of fraudulent papers originating from paper mills. This editorial highlights 20 important features we observed with paper mills and explains how the journal is responding to this serious threat to restore the integrity of science. Hopefully, this editorial is also helpful for editors of other scientific journals.

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.

Training to ensure good documentation practices and adherence to regulatory requirements in human nutrition randomized controlled trials has not been given sufficient attention. Furthermore, it is difficult to find this information conveniently organized or in a form relevant to nutrition protocols. Current gaps in training and research surveillance exist in clinical nutrition research because training modules emphasize drugs and devices, promote reliance on monitoring boards, and lack nutrition expertise on human nutrition research teams. Additionally, because eating is essential, ongoing, and highly individualized, it is difficult to distinguish risks associated with interventions from eating under free-living conditions. Controlled-feeding trials provide an option to gain more experimental control over food consumed, but at a price of less external validity, and may pose human behavior issues that are unrelated to the intervention. This paper covers many of the expected practices for documentation and regulation that may be encountered in planning and conducting nutrition intervention trials with examples and references that should be useful to clinical nutrition researchers, funders of research, and research institutions. Included are definitions and guidance on clinical nutrition research oversight (institutional review boards, data safety and monitoring boards, US FDA); participant safety; standard operating procedures; training of investigators, staff, and students; and local culture and reporting requirements relevant to diet-related clinical research conduct and documentation.

Across three studies (total N = 952), we tested how self-admitted use of psychedelics and association with psychedelic culture affects the public’s evaluation of researchers’ scientific integrity and of the quality of their research. In Studies 1 and 2, we found that self-admitted substance use negatively affected people’s assessment of a fictitious researcher’s integrity (i.e. being unbiased, professional, and honest), but not of the quality of his research, or how much value and significance they ascribed to the findings. Study 3, however, found that an association with psychedelic culture (i.e. presenting work at a scientific conference that includes social activities stereotypically associated with psychedelic culture) negatively affected perceived research quality (e.g. less valid, true, unbiased). We further found that the latter effect was moderated by participants’ personal experience with psychedelic substances: only participants without such experience evaluated research quality more negatively when it was presented in a stereotyped context.

This introductory essay frames our special issue by discussing how attention to the history of research integrity and fraud can stimulate new historical and methodological insights of broader import to historians of science.

This introductory essay frames our special issue by discussing how attention to the history of research integrity and fraud can stimulate new historical and methodological insights of broader import to historians of science.

This article analyzes labor shevchenkoznavchi labor Domanytskoho, in particular his article “A critical investigation on the text «Kobzar» Shevchenko” (1906.)., У статті аналізуються шевченкознавчі праці В.М.Доманицького, зокрема його "Критичний розслід над текстом "Кобзаря" Шевченка" (1906 р.)

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.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education—one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM’s report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.

Application of quantitative techniques in the study of tourism phenomena has gained momentum in the last two decades. Various quantitative methods allow researchers to investigate problems encompas...

Trust is essential for good patient care. Abuses in research and in medical care undermines trust in governmental medical care systems. Restoring trust involves acknowledging and correcting past harms to communities and individuals.

German medical students are not sufficiently introduced to the ethical principles and pitfalls of scientific work. Therefore, a compulsory course on good scientific practice (GSP) has been developed and implemented into the curriculum of medical students, with the goal to foster scientific integrity and prevent scientific misconduct. Students’ knowledge and attitudes towards GSP were evaluated by a pre-post-teaching questionnaire survey (n = 239). Most participants initially had startling knowledge gaps in the field. Moreover, they were not acquainted with core institutions on GSP, the office of ombudsperson and the nationally binding guidelines on GSP. The pre-post-teaching comparison showed statistically significant improvement in all areas tested; moreover, after the course participants confided more trust in GSP institutions. Applying ethical rules into practice can be challenging; therefore, students need to learn to work independently with guidelines on GSP and should be introduced to institutions providing further guidance. As our study has shown, students are very willing to pursue a scientific career based on integrity and honesty, however, they lack the knowledge how to do so. In light of our results, we therefore recommend to integrate courses on GSP already at an early time into the mandatory curriculum of medical students.

Scientific integrity is a learned skill. When researchers and students learn integrity in laboratories or in the classroom, they are empowered to use similar principles in other aspects of their lives. This commentary reviews the concepts related to scientific integrity at a time when science faces important challenges related to the increase number of articles produced regarding research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ignited another parallel viral pandemic, with science ranging from robust studies to dishonest studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate. A balance is needed between the benefits of the rapid access to new scientific data and the threat of causing panic or erroneous clinical decisions based on mistakes or misconduct. The truth is that the "scientific research has changed the world" but now, and more than ever, "it needs to change itself". A pandemic with a "paperdemic" will be even more complicated to manage if it progresses in an uncontrolled manner and is not properly scrutinized.

This paper aims to analyze the theme of authorship and co-authorship of scientific articles, especially in relation to Law field of knowledge. Basically, its aim is to answer: when can a researcher legitimately be nominated as coauthor of a scientific paper? This is a pertinent issue, considering the academic, social and economic impacts of the definition of authorship, as well as its importance in terms of accountability and integrity of scientific production. Thus, it will analyze the co-authorship conditions and the basic standards on the subject., Este trabalho pretende analisar a temática da autoria e coautoria de artigos científicos, especialmente em relação ao campo do Direito. Basicamente, almeja-se responder: quando um pesquisador pode, legitimamente, ser indicado como coautor de um artigo científico? Trata-se de questão pertinente, tendo em vista os impactos acadêmicos, sociais e econômicos da definição de autoria, além da importância em termos de responsabilização e integridade da produção científica. Assim, serão analisados os critérios de coautoria e as diretrizes básicas sobre a temática.

Background and objective To analyse articles retracted due to authors’ misbehaviors contributes to know the scientific integrity situation of a discipline or a country. The largest worldwide database on retracted articles is Retraction Watch (RW). The objective was to know the reasons and features of the biomedical articles retracted of Spanish authors. Material and methods A search was conducted in the RW database of 7 types of scientific articles from 9 biomedicine disciplines –biology, genetics, medicine, microbiology, neurosciences, nutrition, dentistry, public health and toxicology–, with at least one author working in a Spanish center, and published between 1970 and 2018. The features of the articles and the reasons for their retraction were recorded. Results Of the 18,621 retracted articles, 217 (1%) were from Spanish authors; 155 (74%) were of biomedicine and the types of article of interest. In a majority of cases, there were several reasons to retract an article. Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) and duplication were involved in 23% and 35% of the cases, respectively. Only 8% of the articles were retracted due to errors of the authors or the journals. A dentist retracted 18 articles –all from the same journal and in the same year, 2018–, which accounts for 12% of all biomedicine retracted articles. Conclusion The number of biomedicine retracted articles by Spanish authors is low. Scientific misconduct was a reason frequently involved, with few articles retracted by honest errors.

Background: Good Clinical Practice is an international standard for the design and conduct of clinical trials to ensure ethical and scientific integrity. Recent National Institutes of Health policy mandates Good Clinical Practice training for all investigators and staff involved in National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials, yet approaches to Good Clinical Practice training vary widely. There are limited data on Good Clinical Practice knowledge among the clinical trial workforce and no evidence regarding effective methods to learn Good Clinical Practice. Methods: We used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We conducted 18 exploratory qualitative interviews with clinical research coordinators to help inform the development of the quantitative survey. We then administered a validated 32-item, multiple-choice test of Good Clinical Practice knowledge with a survey of work and training experiences to 625 clinical research coordinators at three academic medical centers in the United States. Variables that were significantly associated with Good Clinical Practice knowledge were entered into a multiple regression analysis to identify unique predictors of Good Clinical Practice knowledge. We controlled for verbal–numerical reasoning and learning orientation. Results: During qualitative interviews, clinical research coordinators reported that formal Good Clinical Practice training had value but they simultaneously emphasized the importance of experience, day-to-day practice, and observing colleagues and mentors as essential to supplement formal training. In our quantitative survey, five variables predicted a total of 22% of variance in Good Clinical Practice knowledge scores: years of experience as a clinical research coordinator, working on diverse types of trials, supporting industry-funded trials, being certified in clinical research coordination, and aggregated hours of online and face-to-face training (in that order). Conclusion: The duration and richness of experience as a clinical research coordinator were the strongest predictors of Good Clinical Practice knowledge, a finding consistent with our exploratory qualitative interview results. Our findings suggest that formal online and face-to-face training has a minimal influence on Good Clinical Practice knowledge. The type of training—whether online or face to face—does not make a significant difference in Good Clinical Practice knowledge scores. Much of the variance in Good Clinical Practice knowledge remains unexplained, calling for further research in this area.

We discuss the epistemological status of denialism understood in the narrow sense as an unreasonable denial of scientific consensus. We consider denialism in the context of virtue epistemology as a certain combination of agent’s intel­lectual qualities. Denialism is based on rejection of the scientific integrity, se­lective attitude to facts and evidences as well as on the disregard of other agents. Denialism can be directed either against the entire scope of scientific knowledge on a specific problem (“general denialism”) or against its certain pieces (“specific denialism”). Along with these two types, we distinguish “local denialism”, where in the absence of strict denial of scientific knowledge an un­reasonable ban on its application in specific conditions can be imposed. As an example of “local denialism” we consider the discussion on the implementa­tion of opioid substitution therapy in Russia. Based on the analysis of the skep­tical arguments, we identify the epistemic tools that “local deniers” use to legit­imize their position. We believe that all types of denialism are characterized by misunderstanding of the virtues of skepticism and autonomy. This misunder­standing rises from the paradoxical combination of epistemic vices of rigidity and intellectual compliance.

أدب القضاء عند الأحناف وکتاب ابن مازة أنموذجا أحمد بن علي الفيفي. کلية الدراسات القضائية، وزارة الدفاع، جامعة الملک عبد العزيز، المملکة العربية السعودية . البريد الإلکتروني : Ahmedemha@hotmail.com ملخص : لقد کانت هناک عناية فائقة لعلماء الإسلام , والفقهاء على اختلاف مشاربهم ومذاهبهم في الاهتمام بالقضاء لا ککتاب من کتب الفقه بل کعلم مستقل ,فأفردوا مؤلفات في آدابه ومن أکثرهم تأليفا الأحناف , وهذا البحث للحديث عن کتبهم و قد تميزت به کتب القضاء في المذهب الحنفي بالأمانة العلمية وإثراء المذهب و النقد العلمي و کثرة المراجع و تطوير صياغات القواعد و الاعتناء بالجانب العقلي في الاستدلال و المقارنات المذهبية و الموسوعية والربط العلمي بأصول المذهب ثم وعرض البحث للإمام ابن مازة (ت: 535 هـ) في شرحه لکتاب" أدب القاضي" للخصاف حيث امتاز کتاب ابن مازه في شرحه لأدب القاضي بمزايا عديد، من أهمها کثرة المراجع والمصادر التي اعتمد عليها المؤلف في تأليف مصنفه، وخاصة من سبقوه في شرح هذا الکتاب کالسرخسي، والحلواني، والسغدي، والقدوري، وکان غالبا ما يحيل على شرح للجامع الصغير والجامع الکبير لمحمد بن الحسن الشيبانيومن أجل ذلک فالکتاب يحتل مکانة عالية بين کتب القضاء عامة وکتب الحنفية خاصة، مما جعله مصدرا من مصادر التصنيف لکثير من المصنفين الذين أتوا بعده، کالسروجي وغيره. الکلمات المفتاحية :أدب القضاء ،الأحناف، کتاب ابن مازة، أنموذجا . The Literature of the judiciary at Al-elahanaf and the book of Ibn Mazah as an model College of Judicial Studies, Ministry of Defense, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Email: Ahmedemha@hotmail.com Abstract: There was great care for the scholars of Islam, and the jurists differed in their ways and doctrines in caring for the judiciary, not as a book from the books of jurisprudence but as an independent science, so they singled out literature in his literature and among the most familiar with the Hanafis, and this research is to talk about their books and the books of the judiciary have been distinguished in the Hanafi school with scientific integrity Enriching the doctrine and scholarly criticism, the abundance of references, developing the formulations of the rules, caring for the mental aspect in reasoning, doctrinal and encyclopedic comparisons, and the scientific connection with the origins of the doctrine. and then presented the research to Imam Ibn Mazah (T .: 535 AH) in his explanation of the book "Literature of the Judge" for Al-Khasaf, where he excelled a book Ibn Mazeh in explaining The literature of the judge has many advantages, the most important of which are the many references and sources on which the author relied on authoring his work, especially those who preceded him in explaining this book such as Al-Sarkhasi, Al-Halawani, Al-Sughdi and Al-Qaddouri, and he was often referring to an explanation of the small mosque and the great mosque of Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-Shaybhanim for that. The book occupies a high position among the judiciary books in general and the Hanafi books in particular, which made it a source of classification for many of the classifiers who came after it, such as Alsrouji and others. Key words: Literature of the judiciary, Al-elahanaf, The book of Ibn Mazah, A model.

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

The COVID-19 health crisis has so far involved enormous consequences in human pain, suffering and death. While biomedical science responded early, its response has been marked by several controversies between what appeared to be mainstream perspectives, and diverse alternative views; far from leading to productive debate, controversies often preceded polarisation and, allegedly, exclusion and even censorship of alternative views, followed by the pretense of scientific consensus. This paper describes and discusses the main controversies in the production of COVID biomedical knowledge and derived control measures, to establish if alternative positions are also legitimate from a ‘normal science’ perspective (rather than comparing them for superiority); explores potential non-scientific explanations of the alleged exclusion of certain views; and analyzes ethical issues implied. The operation of non-scientific factors in scientific and regulatory processes (e.g. various forms of subtle corruption) has been documented in the past; the intervention of such influences in the mishandling of controversies (i.e. on early management, non-pharmacological prevention and vaccination) cannot be ruled out and deserves further investigation. Some of these controversies, increasingly visible in the public domain, also involve ethical challenges that need urgent attention. Polarisation, censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be left behind.

L’évolution des technologies de l’information et de la communication induite par la révolution numérique, ébranle de manière radicale le monde de l’information scientifique et technique (IST) et de la recherche. Déployée au sein d’un espace réticulaire inédit, d’une dimension a priori illimitée, l’IST fait en effet face à des défis déterminants pour l’avancée de la science, en particulier dans le contexte de la Science ouverte, que ce soit en termes de publication, de documentation, d’accès, d’expertise, d’évaluation, d’intégrité, de droits d’auteurs, mais aussi de coût. Désormais, on partage plus qu’on ne diffuse, avec pour conséquence une réorganisation profonde de l’IST sous-tendue par des relations complexes entre les différents acteurs historiques publics et privés, mais aussi sous la pression des réseaux sociaux et de l’éclosion incontrôlable de nouveaux éditeurs prédateurs. En observant la genèse de ce nouveau paradigme, nous analysons l’évolution des pratiques et leur impact sur les chercheurs, sur les professionnels de l’IST, ainsi que les enjeux pour l’organisation de la recherche publique. The evolution of information and communication technologies induced by the digital revolution is radically shaking the world of scientific and technical information (STI) and scholarly research. Deployed within a new reticular space, of an a priori unlimited dimension, the STI is indeed facing decisive challenges for the advancement of science, particularly in the context of Open Science, in terms of publication, documentation, access, expertise, evaluation, integrity, copyright, as well as cost. In this new ecosystem, one may say that we share more than we disseminate, with the consequence of a profound reorganization of STI underpinned by complex relations between the different historical public and private stakeholders, but also under the pressure of social networks and the uncontrollable emergence of new predatory publishers. By observing the genesis of this new paradigm, we analyze the evolution of practices and their impact on researchers and STI professionals, as well as the stakes for the organization of public research.

Invited talk at the Research Seminar of Naver Labs Europe. March 8, 2022; Probabilistic text generators have been used to produce fake scientific papers for more than a decade. Now more complex AI-powered generation techniques produce texts indistinguishable from that of humans and the generation of scientific texts starting from a few keywords used as input has been documented. Our study introduces the concept of tortured phrases: unexpected weird phrases in lieu of established ones, such as ‘counterfeit consciousness’ instead of ‘artificial intelligence.’ Hypothesising the use of advanced language models we ran a detector on the abstracts of recent articles and on several control sets.

Many water scientists aim for their work to inform water policy and management, and in pursuit of this objective, they often work alongside government water agencies to ensure their research is relevant, timely and communicated effectively. A paper in this issue, examining 'Science integrity, public policy and water governance in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia���, suggests that a large group of scientists, who work on water management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) including the Basin Plan, have been subject to possible ���administrative capture'. Specifically, it is suggested that they have advocated for policies favoured by government agencies with the objective of gaining personal benefit, such as increased research funding. We examine evidence for this claim and conclude that it is not justified. The efforts of scientists working alongside government water agencies appear to have been misinterpreted as possible administrative capture. Although unsubstantiated, this claim does indicate that the science used in basin water planning is increasingly caught up in the politics of water management. We suggest actions to improve science-policy engagement in basin planning, to promote constructive debate over contested views and avoid the over-politicisation of basin science.

This editorial presents some reflections on how much originality should be required from those manuscripts submitted for publication in academic journals and, more specifically, in Pensar en Movimiento. En este editorial se reflexiona sobre el grado de originalidad que se debe exigir a los manuscritos que se reciben para publicación en las revistas académicas y, más específicamente, en Pensar en Movimiento. En este editorial se reflexiona sobre el grado de originalidad que se debe exigir a los manuscritos que se reciben para publicación en las revistas académicas y, más específicamente, en Pensar en Movimiento.

Resumen Aragón-Vargas, L.F. (2021). Editorial: Originalidad y contexto. PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO: Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 19(2), 1-4. En este editorial se reflexiona sobre el grado de originalidad que se debe exigir a los manuscritos que se reciben para publicación en las revistas académicas y, más específicamente, en Pensar en Movimiento. Abstract Aragón-Vargas, L.F. (2021). Editorial: originality and context. PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO: Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 19(2), 1-4.This editorial presents some reflections on how much originality should be required from those manuscripts submitted for publication in academic journals and, more specifically, in Pensar en Movimiento. Resumo Aragón-Vargas, L.F. (2021). Editorial: Originalidade e contexto. PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO: Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 19(2), 1-4. Neste editorial é feita uma reflexão sobre o grau de originalidade exigida dos manuscritos recebidos para publicação nas revistas acadêmicas e, mais especificamente, na Pensar en Movimiento.

On May 2021, the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (SAAS) announced the publication of new guidelines on scientific integrity under the title “Code of conduct for sci- entific integrity” (hereafter “the Code”) [1]. The document was developed by a group of experts from the SAAS, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Rectors' Confer- ence of the Swiss Universities (swissuniversities), and the Swiss Innovation Agency (Innosuisse). The Code is an up- dated and expanded version of the document titled "In- tegrity in scientific research. Principles and procedures" that was issued by the SAAS in 2008.