Search

AbstractAcademia has faced the challenge of emerging hijacked journals, which create a fake website for a legitimate journal by copying its name, ISSN, and other metadata. Authors submitting a manuscript to a hijacked journal would not recognize that the journal website was for a hijacked journal instead of the legitimate one. There are various methods for detecting hijacked journals that are usable by information technology savvy researchers. Detected hijacked journals through use of these methods are usually then added to hijacked journals blacklists. This paper presents a new method for hijacked journals detection that uses the web domain data and list of known hijacked journals to identify new ones. By implementing this method, nine new hijacked journals were identified. This method can be used for detecting new hijacked journals and preventing additional victims – authors who submit papers to the hijacked instead of the legitimate journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The autobiographical 2024 Brief Report published in Structural Chemistry by the heterocyclic chemist Professor José Elguero prompted the author to describe his recollections of a similar yet twisted little tale of an incident occurred in 1964 during his Organic Chemistry Ph.D. period at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The trait d'union between the two tales is the significance of unusual infrared frequencies in the characterization of newly synthesized organic compounds. The absence of an infrared band at the 1800–1900 cm−1 region was a sufficient condition for ruling out a cyclopropanone structure (Elguero's little tale). The presence of such an infrared band was a necessary condition for the presence of a triafulvene and triapentafulvalene systems (author's twisted little tale). The related experience in the publication of Communications to the Editor articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society is also described. A further teaching of the author's tale is the importance of early learning of ethics and integrity in the scientific publication process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic raised challenges for everyday life. Development of new diagnostic tests was necessary, but under such enormous pressure risking inadequate evaluation. Against a background of concern about standards applied to the evaluation of in vitro diagnostic tests (IVDs), clear statistical thinking was needed on the principles of diagnostic testing in general, and their application in a pandemic. Therefore, in July 2020, the Royal Statistical Society convened a Working Group of six biostatisticians to review the statistical evidence needed to ensure the performance of new tests, especially IVDs for infectious diseases—for regulators, decision-makers, and the public. The Working Group's review was undertaken when the Covid-19 pandemic shone an unforgiving light on current processes for evaluating and regulating IVDs for infectious diseases. The report's findings apply more broadly than to the pandemic and IVDs, to diagnostic test evaluations in general. A section of the report focussed on lessons learned during the pandemic and aimed to contribute to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry's examination of the response to, and impact of, the Covid-19 pandemic to learn lessons for the future. The review made 22 recommendations on what matters for study design, transparency, and regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While guest or honourary authorship in academic papers is a broadly and widely discussed phenomenon in biomedical research, the issue of the use—or abuse—of article-processing charges (APCs) as a form of potential authorship exchange currency, that is, the 'APC ring,' is neither being considered nor discussed. The APC is central to the open-access (OA) movement, specifically the gold OA model. It is conceivable that, in a hyper-competitive academic publishing environment where the number of gold OA journals is growing, a segment of poorly funded researchers aiming to publish in ranked OA journals with out-of-reach APCs might turn to richer or well-funded researchers to cover the APC bill in exchange for authorship. Despite this, no published cases directly documenting APC-for-authorship schemes as a form of guest authorship appear to exist, which seems inconceivable. One possible explanation is that if such unethical behaviour were to be detected by APC-charging OA journals, it might not be reported as such. In this situation, APC-dependent OA journals would be conflicted between receiving a financial lifeline, the APC, and exposing authors that have abused the APC in their journals in exchange for authorship. How would publishers dependent on the APC-based OA model justify receiving APCs derived from an APC ring? Although this form of guest authorship is currently hypothetical, it seems highly likely, so this issue needs greater debate, and if actual case studies exist, these need to be openly and publicly debated to better appreciate how this phenomenon is taking place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, especially since the COVID‐19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open‐access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early‐career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early‐career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The key norm of good science is research integrity, which includes the freedom to inquire as an independent, self-organising system, and the responsibility to identify, frame, and engage in the problems of society, in a scientific manner. This paper investigates the challenges to scientific integrity experienced by university research centres. Research centres are organised around specific problematic fields in society and are expected to have specific societal impacts. Therefore, they are born with the paradox of being restricted in terms of scientific freedom yet required to meet science standards. As an example, we analyse the Danish Centre for Rural Research (CLF) which, like many other institutions of science and research centres, has become increasingly dependent on various external funding over the past decades. In social systems theoretical terms, research centres are hybrid organisations that operate simultaneously in the function systems of science, politics, and economy. The question is whether it is possible for research centres to uphold the requisite research integrity to provide society with truthful and critical knowledge – i.e. to uphold the necessary autopoiesis of the science function system, operating in the medium of truth – and at the same time be able to navigate in the structures of power that the centre is faced with, in terms of funding, outside control, and expectations of expectations. The medieval court jester, who was able to speak unwelcome truths to the all-mighty king without getting his head cut off, was a solution to this kind of paradox. The question is how we can handle this paradox in contemporary sciences, increasingly depending on external funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revija Šport is the property of Sport: Revija Za Teoreticna in Praticna Vprasanja Sporta 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.)

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.

The aim was to describe biomedical retractions and analyse those retracted in 2000–2021 due to research misconduct among authors affiliated with European institutions. A cross-sectional study was conducted, using Retraction Watch database, Journal Citation Reports and PubMed as data sources. Biomedical original papers, reviews, case reports and letters with at least one author affiliated with an European institution retracted between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2021 were included. We characterized rates over time and conducted an analysis on the 4 countries with the highest number of retractions: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. 2069 publications were identified. Retraction rates increased from 10.7 to 44.8 per 100,000 publications between 2000 and 2020. Research misconduct accounted for most retractions (66.8%). The reasons for misconduct-related retractions shifted over time, ranging from problems of copyright and authorship in 2000 (2.5 per 100,000 publications) to duplication in 2020 (8.6 per 100,000 publications). In 2020, the main reason was fabrication and falsification in the United Kingdom (6.2 per 100,000 publications) and duplication in Spain (13.2 per 100,000 publications).Retractions of papers by authors affiliated with European institutions are increasing and are primarily due to research misconduct. The type of misconduct has changed over time and differ between European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Homeopathy was first postulated by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 and 220 years later homeopathy is the most popular and widespread alternative medicine. Partly, it is also part of the national healthcare and insurance systems but homeopathy is not without controversy within the medical and healthcare community. Its implausible basic assumptions, some of which contradict natural laws, do not lead us to expect that its remedies have any specific effect. In fact, there is no study or systematic review to date that reliably certifies homeopathy to have an effect beyond the placebo effect and other context effects. In this respect it must be disconcerting how widely homeopathy is applied and represented in therapeutic practice. It indeed claims a role within scientific (evidence-based) medicine but cannot substantiate this claim. It displays clear characteristics of pseudoscience [1]. This implies a lot of problems, such as misleading people and tackling medical ethics up to scientific publication practices. Furthermore, it turns out that quite a few people do not know exactly what homeopathy is, which may lead them to make wrong decisions for their personal health. This article summarizes the information about homeopathy and its problematic implications and serves as a general introduction to this topic and its unacceptable role in today's medicine. The medical irrelevance of the sham method of homeopathy has been proven with more than sufficient probability [2]. As a major testimonial, the statement "Homeopathic products and practices" of the European (EASAC 2017) can be regarded. The primary aim of this brief report is therefore not to take another look at homeopathy from a medical scientific perspective, but rather focus attention on the implications of the still continuous and largely uncritically accepted existence of this method in medical practice, in the medical scientific sphere and in the judgement of the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates retracted articles indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) Brazil, using bibliometric techniques to identify the characteristics of these retractions and relevant citation trends. All records of retracted articles from the first record in October 2004 to April 2022 were included. Sixty-seven retractions and 870 citations pre- and post-retraction were analyzed. Results indicate a change of scenario that began in 2015, with recurrences of retracted articles allegedly produced by paper mills. The prevalence of retractions derived from professional misconduct in health research and the frequency of post-retraction citations in health sciences raise concerns in the chain of stakeholders, public health, and scientific development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the research project \"Summa cum fraude - Scientific Misconduct and an Attempt at Counteroffensive\" at Saarland University, an interview was conducted with Ivan Oransky. Oransky is a co-founder of the Retraction Watch database and the Retraction Watch blog, which address scientific misconduct and the retraction of published articles. In the interview, he discusses scientific misconduct, such as data manipulation and peer review processes, as well as plagiarism. He emphasizes the importance of clear retraction notices and sanctions for misconduct. Oransky sees a role for libraries and librarians in ensuring the quality of data and research. The number of retracted scientific articles has dramatically increased in the last 25 years. In 2021, over 3800 retractions were recorded, compared to about 40 in 2000. The retraction rate is currently at 0.08%, while it was at 0.04% four or five years ago. There is a clear upward trend, and some publishers even report hundreds of retractions at once. The Retraction Watch database and blog provide information on this issue and are used by many people. There are various reasons for retractions, such as fake reviews, legal issues, or authorship questions. Guidelines like those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) can help reduce the number of retractions and improve the integrity of scientific publications. It is important to communicate transparently about retractions to bring about long-term changes. There are already approaches such as registered reports and the disclosure of peer reviews that can improve scientific practice. However, the challenge remains of how best to handle allegations against scientific publications and ensure that they are taken seriously and addressed. It requires better infrastructure and collaboration between researchers, publishers, and other service providers to track and systematically document reports of questionable publications. [Extracted from the article]

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]

The Brazilian Federal Senate created a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (CPI) to investigate the Bolsonaro government's irregularities in the management of the COVID‐19 pandemic. One of the cases that drew attention was the research conducted by Prevent Senior, a private health insurance company, on the early treatment of COVID‐19. The article analyzes the scientific validity of the research and the ethical problems related to its implementation. It is based on analysis of Prevent Senior's report of the clinical study, the Brazilian and USA clinical trial registries, the Senate's CPI report, and on the information reported by the media. This case of scientific fraud and political‐ideological bias exemplifies how Prevent Senior, using a questionable protocol to enhance its reputation and gain government support, was instrumental in building the "early treatment" narrative for COVID‐19, and shows how it served as a basis for a government public policy that promoted the use of ineffective drugs. [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).

The past decade has witnessed a substantial increase in the number of affiliations listed by individual authors of scientific papers. Some authors now list an astonishing number of institutions, sometimes exceeding 20, 30, or more. This trend raises concerns regarding the genuine scientific contributions these authors make at each institution they claim to be affiliated with. To address this issue, our study conducted a comprehensive regional analysis of the growth of both domestic and international multi-affiliations over the past decade. Our findings reveal certain countries that have experienced an abnormal surge in international multi-affiliation authorships. Coupled with the high numbers of affiliations involved, this emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of the actual scientific contributions made by these authors and the importance of safeguarding the integrity of scientific output and networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

In the United States, science shapes federal health and safety protections, but political officials can and do politicize federal science and science-based safeguards. Many presidential administrations have politicized science, but under the administration of President Trump, these attacks on science—such as buried research, censored scientists, halted data collection—increased in number to unprecedented levels. Underserved communities bore the brunt of the harms. Such attacks disproportionately harm Black, Indigenous, low-income communities, and communities of color, all of whom have long been burdened by pollution exposure and other stressors. We analyze the effects on underserved communities of the Trump administration's anti-science environmental and public health policy actions and offer policy recommendations for current and future administrations. Our goal is to strengthen scientific integrity, prioritize health disparity research, and meaningfully engage affected communities in federal rulemaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]