Search

The author, who is editor in chief of the publication, discusses the aims of the incoming editorial panel with respect to strengthening the journal and improving the reliability and relevance of the research it publishes. She discusses the importance of research that is of use to marketing stakeholders, the value of research that draws on more than one method and/or more than one data source, and the problem of credibility and transparency of research in the marketing field.

Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) promises great storing potential for energy produced from renewables. To make UHS a feasible and safe process, fundamental research investigating the integrity of the cement sheath applied in boreholes against hydrogen exposure is essential. In this study, hydrothermal autoclave experiments are conducted to evaluate hydrogen induced changes in the mineralogical phase composition and the microstructure of a class G cement. X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy combined with nitrogen adsorption/desorption experiments are carried out. Only minor mineralogical changes are observed such as the decomposition of monosulphate and the formation of ettringite. Nitrogen adsorption/desorption experiments reveal comparable pore size distributions with minor differences in porosity and surface area. The findings of this study suggest that hydrogen does not substantially affect the phase composition and microstructure of the investigated low permeable class G cement sheath emphasizing the relatively unreactive nature of downhole cements of this type against hydrogen. [Display omitted] • Hydrogen does not change the major phase composition of class G cement. • Microstructure and pore size distribution are not altered. • Hydrogen and brine presence favour ettringite formation at low T. • Low reactivity of class G cement with hydrogen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite the use of plagiarism-checking software and current ethical guidelines in sport management journals, raising awareness of ethical concerns and potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI) applications is necessary. This paper discusses how AI affects ethical research and publishing and provides guidelines for sport management scholars to ensure quality and integrity of their research. Design/methodology/approach: A comprehensive review and critical analysis of literature was performed to evaluate research ethics, potential risks, and guiding principles for the use of AI in research. Findings: Ethical research guidelines for quantitative sport management research were proposed. The guidelines encompass seven principles for the proper use of AI and ethical conduct specific to the research methods, data analysis, and results, which would be challenging for AI to accurately replicate. Originality/value: This study provides an original contribution to the field of sport management because numerous questions concerning ethics and AI have not been addressed until now. The guidelines are suitable for use by sport management scholars, concerning the accuracy, validity, and quality of research while mitigating ethical risks in AI-generated content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Methaodos: Social Science Journal / Methaodos: Revista de Ciencias Sociales is the property of Departamento de Ciencias de la Comunicacion y Sociologia, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos 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.)

The words integrity, ethics, and governance are used interchangeably in relation to research. This masks important differences that must be understood when trying to address concerns regarding research culture. While progress has been made in identifying negative aspects of research culture (such as inequalities in hiring/promotion, perverse incentives, etc.) and practical issues that lead to research waste (outcome reporting bias, reproducibility, etc.), the responsibility for addressing these problems can be unclear due to the complexity of the research environment. One solution is to provide a clearer distinction between the perspectives of "Research Integrity," "Research Ethics," and "Research Governance." Here, it is proposed that Research Integrity should be understood as focused on the character of researchers, and consequently the responsibility for promoting it lies primarily with researchers themselves. This is a different perspective from Research Ethics, which is focused on judgments on the ethical acceptability of research, and should primarily be the responsibility of research ethics committees, often including input from the public as well as the research community. Finally, Research Governance focuses on legal and policy requirements, and although complementary to research integrity and ethics, is primarily the responsibility of expert research support officers with the skills and experience to address technical compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (n = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More commonly today, research ethics and misconduct are ideas that are frequently violated. The availability of information sources and the dissemination of awareness among researchers can help to reduce this kind of violation. This study highlights how YouTube can be used to promote discussions of research misconduct and ethics. The study looked into how many videos there are on research ethics and misconduct, which colleges actively provide such videos, and how satisfied viewers are with the available videos by analyzing comments. Various software tools, including Webometric Analyst, R-studio, and Microsoft Excel, were applied for data collection and analysis. On 01-24-2023, 515 videos and 6984 comments were retrieved using the correct search queries that is "Research ethics" OR "Research misconduct" OR "Research conduct" OR "Scientific integrity" OR "Research integrity" OR "Scientific misconduct." Results indicate that 2020 was the most significant year, since the most videos (241) were posted in this year. The channels titled "PPIRCPSC, ABRIZAH A, and ALHOORI H" upload 10, 9, and 8 videos respectively, placing them in the first, second, and third positions. By analyzing viewer comments, it was determined that the majority of comments were favorable, indicating that viewers are generally pleased with the available videos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other's findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse. By adopting open science practices, research becomes transparent and accountable. Only then it is possible to verify whether trust in research findings is justified. The magnitude of the issue is substantial with a prevalence of four percent for both fabrication and falsification, and more than 50% for questionable research practices. This implies that researchers regularly engage in behaviors that harm the validity and trustworthiness of their work. What is good for the quality and reliability of research is not always good for a scholarly career. Navigating this dilemma depends on how virtuous the researcher at issue is, but also on the local research climate and the perverse incentives in the way the research system functions. Research institutes, funding agencies and scholarly journals can do a lot to foster research integrity, first and foremost by improving the quality of peer review and reforming researcher assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations undermine the quality of research and trust in science. When researchers engage in these behaviors, institutional officials (IOs) often develop corrective action plans. Ideally, such plans address the root causes so noncompliance or research integrity violations discontinue. The aim of this study was to identify what IOs perceive as causes and action plan activities typically prescribed. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 47 IOs at research institutions across the U.S. including: institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee chairs and directors, chief research officers, research compliance and integrity officers, and institutional conflicts of interest chairs and directors. The most common root causes identified were: 1) lack of knowledge or training, 2) failure to provide research team supervision, and 3) researcher attitudes toward compliance. The most common action plan activities include: 1) retraining in compliance or research integrity, 2) follow-up and hands-on involvement with the researcher, and 3) mandated oversight or mentoring. Because the most commonly identified action plan activities fail to adequately address the majority of root causes, our findings suggest a need for IOs to rethink existing approaches to action plan development to more effectively target root causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research data mismanagement (RDMM) is a serious threat to accountability, reproducibility, and re-use of data. In a recent article in this journal, it was argued that RDMM can take two forms: intentional research misconduct or unintentional questionable research practice (QRP). I disagree because the scale for severity of consequences of research misbehavior is not bimodal. Furthermore, intentionality is difficult to prove beyond doubt and is only one of many criteria that should be taken into account when deciding on the severity of a breach of research integrity and whether a sanction is justified. Making a distinction between RDMM that is research misconduct and RDMM which not puts too much emphasis on intentionality and sanctioning. The focus should rather be on improving data management practices by preventive actions, in which research institutions should take a leading role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In medical research, the accuracy of data from electronic medical records (EMRs) is critical, particularly when analyzing dense functional data, where anomalies can severely compromise research integrity. Anomalies in EMRs often arise from human errors in data measurement and entry, and increase in frequency with the volume of data. Despite the established methods in computer science, anomaly detection in medical applications remains underdeveloped. We address this deficiency by introducing a novel tool for identifying and correcting anomalies specifically in dense functional EMR data. Our approach utilizes studentized residuals from a mean‐shift model, and therefore assumes that the data adheres to a smooth functional trajectory. Additionally, our method is tailored to be conservative, focusing on anomalies that signify actual errors in the data collection process while controlling for false discovery rates and type II errors. To support widespread implementation, we provide a comprehensive R package, ensuring that our methods can be applied in diverse settings. Our methodology's efficacy has been validated through rigorous simulation studies and real‐world applications, confirming its ability to accurately identify and correct errors, thus enhancing the reliability and quality of medical data analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis column includes reflections on the UKSG 47th Annual Conference held April 8–10, 2024 in Glasgow, UK and reports on five sessions from the 2024 ER&L Annual Conference held March 3–6, 2024 in Austin, TX. The UKSG conference themes reported on include transitional agreements, artificial intelligence, and research integrity. The ER&L session topics cover e-resource staff challenges in the face of increasing & improving services, accessibility issues through the e-resource lifecycle, a multiple-perspective panel discussion on the journal ecosystem, benefits & lessons learned from a SUSHI implementation project, and Power BI as a tool for supporting collection data analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trial registration is critical for research transparency and integrity. Since 2005, the Declaration of Helsinki has required prospective registration of trials before subject recruitment. In Israel, the MyTrial registry was established in 2015 to register interventional trials and became mandatory in 2016 for ethical approval. The study aimed to analyze the registration practices, challenges, and trends in clinical trial registration in Israel using the local registry "MyTrial". Methods: A total of 3,895 clinical trial records from 2011 to December 2022 were retrieved from the MyTrial platform and subjected to descriptive analysis. Results: A significant increase occurred from 2016 to 2021 due to mandated registration, with a peak in 2020 (733 trials) and a decrease in 2022 (462 trials), likely due to COVID-19. Most of the trials included drugs (56%) or medical devices (33%). Geographically, 53% were from central Israel. Only 39% of the patients were registered at both MyTrial and ClinicalTrials.gov. 65% had no blinding. 47% featured unregistered products. 56% had not started recruitment. Since 2016, the number of advanced therapy trials has steadily increased, reaching 19 in 2022. There are gaps between registered trials and official government reports. Conclusion: These findings provide valuable insights into the current landscape of clinical trial registration in Israel and highlight the need for improvements in compliance with prospective registration and adherence to the WHO-ICTRP standards. Significance: What's Known on this Subject: Clinical trial registration has been increasingly recognized as important for research transparency and integrity since requirements were introduced in the 2005 Declaration of Helsinki. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the Dotcoms to Watch session at Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) 2024. Five out of the seven selected startups that gave a brief presentation in the session expand upon their talks and reflect on their participation. They are Clear Skies, Global Campus, Ludenso, Signals and Visual Abstract. The startups address challenges faced by the scholarly publishing industry and deal with research integrity, identifying and combating papermills, peer reviewer identification and matchmaking, and graphical abstracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigates the determinants of engagement in questionable research practices (QRPs), focusing on both individual-level factors (such as scholarly field, commitment to scientific norms, gender, contract type, and career stage) and institution-level factors (including industry type, researchers' perceptions of their research culture, and awareness of institutional policies on research integrity). Methods: Using a multi-level modelling approach, we analyse data from an international survey of researchers working across disciplinary fields to estimate the effect of these factors on QRP engagement. Results: Our findings indicate that contract type, career stage, academic field, adherence to scientific norms and gender significantly predict QRP engagement. At the institution level, factors such as being outside of a collegial culture and experiencing harmful publication pressure, and the presence of safeguards against integrity breaches have small associations. Only a minimal amount of variance in QRP engagement is attributable to differences between institutions and countries. Conclusions: We discuss the implications of these findings for developing effective interventions to reduce QRPs, highlighting the importance of addressing both individual and institutional factors in efforts to foster research integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract\nPLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYArtificial intelligence (AI) is transforming higher education. While universities have generally touted technological advancements as part of the fabric of their learning environments, the challenges to equitable outcomes for faculty and students related to the use of AI are under-recognized. There is scant work on the equity and morality of university AI policies and the implications for faculty within higher education institutions. While significant attention has been paid to the effect of tools like ChatGPT on student writing and academic integrity, less attention has been paid to how rapidly emerging AI policies affect other aspects of faculty work, and in potentially inequitable ways. This article considers AI policies at three large state universities to examine what policies are provided to faculty and their impacts, including instructional support for students, faculty research, and patents. Findings suggest that institutions vary greatly in terms of faculty guidance and far more work is needed to provide clear policies and resources regarding ethical AI for faculty. We discuss the implications, including challenges and opportunities for higher education institutions, and provide recommendations for moving forward as new technology continues to evolve.The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding across all fields, but regulatory frameworks are not keeping pace with its use. AI is being integrated into higher education in many ways, but faculty are not adequately prepared to use AI in research and teaching and are not offered guidelines for ethics concerns in research and academic integrity violations in classrooms. In fact, there is very little research or guidelines available on the ethics, equity, and morality of university AI policies and what that means for university faculty. Three large state universities are examined to see what guidelines are being offered to faculty. We find that there is a big difference in terms of guidance on how to use AI in research, in instructional support, and in patents. Implications are discussed including challenges and opportunities for higher education institutions. Further, recommendations are provided for moving forward as new technology continues to evolve. We call attention to monitoring, quality control, and inherent biases in AI algorithms, and discuss the challenge of policy lock-in for a growing tool. Our recommendations focus on institutions looking to their strategic priorities and stakeholder needs and including faculty into conversations on policies that address equity, training, transparency, privacy, security, accuracy, and crisis response. [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]

The field of nursing has consistently upheld a strong sense of ethical awareness, which can be assumed to be reflected in the performance of nursing research. Adhering to sound research principles involves prioritizing research integrity. This entails being clear and open in detailing the methods used, allowing others to have confidence in both the methods and the resulting outcomes. This methodological review aimed to provide an overview of how statistical software programs have been reported in nursing studies. We screened articles published in the year 2023 in the five top‐ranking and the five bottom‐ranking nursing journals and found 311 that were eligible for this review; that is, quantitative/mixed‐methods/meta‐analyses. The most commonly used statistical software programs in these articles was IBM SPSS Statistics, followed by R. However, one out of 10 studies did not report the software used. Among those that reported the software, the software version was not always reported. Our findings suggest that there is insufficient reporting on the statistical software used for analysing quantitative data in nursing journal publications. From a perspective of maintaining research integrity, this presents an issue, as it jeopardizes transparency, sincerity, and, consequently, the ability to replicate methods and have confidence in the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article begins by tracing the reception history of an influential 1984 article in Marcan studies by a long-standing member of the Catholic Biblical Association. Published four decades ago, Augustine Stock's article "Chiastic Awareness and Education in Antiquity" has enjoyed a high number of positive citations in the downstream literature in the decades that followed its publication, and the upward trend line for commending citations continues to the present. The analysis offered here is an exercise in post-publication peer review. The main argument is that the acclaim directed at Stock's article has been misallocated. Nearly every positive reference to Stock's 1984 study in the downstream literature should have been directed instead to the books and articles by a host of authors whose works were excerpted verbatim and near verbatim, without credit, to constitute the bulk of Stock's celebrated article. The implication of this study is clear: there are strong reasons to think that the discipline of biblical studies has a largely undiagnosed misattribution problem. Stock's 1984 article is not a unique case to Marcan studies or to the larger field of biblical studies. An examination of two further publications exemplifies the scale of the problem. I conclude by proposing a way forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the race to find an effective vaccine or treatment saw an 'extraordinary number' of clinical trials being conducted. While there were some key success stories, not all trials produced results that informed patient care. There was a significant amount of waste in clinical research during the pandemic which is said to have hampered an evidence-based response. Conducting trials which could have been predicted to fail to answer the research question (e.g. because they are not large enough to provide a definitive result) is not only a waste of resources but also a breach of research participants' trust and a violation of research ethics. The issues seen in COVID-19 clinical trials are symptomatic of a wider trial design crisis where many trials do not provide informative results. This paper examines the roles of key stakeholders in delivering ethical and informative trials and whether guidance published by 'The Good Clinical Trials Collaborative' could be used to align key stakeholder groups and enable a joined-up approach to improve clinical trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a scoping review of China's academic resource databases, relevant official websites, news reports and public accounts spanning a period from the end of 2019 to the end of 2022, to investigate the challenges in scientific integrity and ethical soundness of research conducted during and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic in China. By conducting the scoping review with keywords related to the research questions in Chinese, relevant data were extracted and classified into four categories: challenges in research, challenges in ethics review, challenges in publishing academic work, and research ethics guidelines during and after the pandemic. The paper points out that problematic studies and findings increased with the escalation in medical research projects during the pandemic in China. The situation faced by researchers was more difficult than before the pandemic. The mode of informed consent, and ethics review and oversight systems also underwent changes. In addition, Traditional Chinese Medicine as an alternative medical treatment for COVID-19, attracted attention from the research community and became a topic of discussion. We conclude that the various challenges and concerns identified indicate a need for a proper and timely response system be formulated in preparation for possible future occurrences of new pandemics or other critical situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic globally disrupted lives and contributed to the exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities. Women in research were also affected. The prominent role that women played in professional and personal care duties had a detrimental effect on their research outputs, potentially hindering their career progression. Moreover, the challenges faced by women academics during the pandemic, including job loss, increased mental health issues, and the intersection of gender with other socio-demographic traits exacerbated existing gender disparities within academia. By systematically scoping the qualitative literature on the experiences of women researchers during the pandemic, this study sought to explore how women experienced and reacted to the challenges generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative meta synthesis of the included studies revealed three themes: gendered professional expectations, colliding identities and coping strategies. These themes show how gendered roles such as teaching and professional care work, associated with the hierarchical and gendered division of tasks both at home and in the workplace, made women feel unsupported and alienated as relevant agents in the academic context. The study reveals the importance of pastoral care, teaching and service work as the essential backbone of the academic infrastructure, especially in times of crises. It also exposes how productivity-focused researcher assessment criteria, rewarding mainly individual results and unrewarding of care and service work, can be viewed as perpetuating structural inequalities based on gender, parenting situations, contractual situations and background. In conclusion, this study exposes the need to proactively address the gendered practices and implicit biases which reproduce inequalities within academia and highlights how paying attention to the experiences and needs of women researchers is essential for improving the resilience and crises preparedness of academic the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This scoping review maps research ethics and integrity challenges and best practices encountered by research actors in the DACH countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), including researchers, funders, publishers, research ethics committees, and policymakers, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic brought research and, in turn, research ethics and integrity, into public focus. This review identified challenges related to changing research environments, diversity in research, publication and dissemination trends, scientific literacy and trust in science, recruitment, research redundancy and study termination, placebo and human challenge studies, data management, and informed consent. These challenges are linked to two crucial factors: first, actors in the DACH research ecosystem lacked a sound knowledge base to assess the risks and benefits of research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, researchers in the DACH region faced pressure from policymakers, funders, and the public to generate relevant, timely, and consistent findings to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this review highlights best practices to mitigate the effects of future crises on research ethics and integrity, including enhanced cooperation among actors, continuous ethics assessments, and support for public scientific literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal 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.)

The Beishan Exploration Tunnel (BET) is a facility built to develop technologies associated with the safety of China's first high‐level radioactive nuclear waste(HLW) disposal. The surrounding rock discontinuity identification is a key research topic in BET, which could provide essential geological data for future HLW disposal stability and integrity research. This article presents the rock discontinuity identification research progress in BET based on Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry technology. The discontinuity identification algorithm is improved by introducing the region‐growing algorithm to optimize the candidate subplane. This algorithm automatically picks the seed, avoids human intervention, and thus increases the work efficiency of the discontinuity identification. The FCM method is improved by embedding with the CFSFDP algorithm in the discontinuity sets grouping. The CFSFDP algorithm coincides well with the Fisher distribution of discontinuity orientations, which is suitable for the Beishan situation. A parallel scheme is used when implementing the method, which accelerates the discontinuity calculation. This improved rock discontinuity identification method was tested on a slope above the BET and applied in the BET. The discontinuity identification results were compared with the results from the manual field measurement and the open‐source software DSE. The results show that the improved discontinuity identification method obtains reliable discontinuity data and costs less time and human workload than the other two methods. The surrounding rock discontinuity identification research provides a powerful tool for the Beishan HLW disposal geological investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reproducible laboratory research relies on correctly identified reagents. We have previously described gene research papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequence(s), including papers studying miR‐145. Manually verifying reagent identities in 36 recent miR‐145 papers found that 56% and 17% of papers described misidentified nucleotide sequences and cell lines, respectively. We also found 5 cell line identifiers in miR‐145 papers with misidentified nucleotide sequences and cell lines, and 18 cell line identifiers published elsewhere, that did not represent indexed human cell lines. These 23 identifiers were described as non‐verifiable (NV), as their identities were unclear. Studying 420 papers that mentioned 8 NV identifier(s) found 235 papers (56%) that referred to 7 identifiers (BGC‐803, BSG‐803, BSG‐823, GSE‐1, HGC‐7901, HGC‐803, and MGC‐823) as independent cell lines. We could not find any publications describing how these cell lines were established. Six cell lines were sourced from cell line repositories with externally accessible online catalogs, but these cell lines were not indexed as claimed. Some papers also stated that short tandem repeat (STR) profiles had been generated for three cell lines, yet no STR profiles could be identified. In summary, as NV cell lines represent new challenges to research integrity and reproducibility, further investigations are required to clarify their status and identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of China Medical Education Technology is the property of China Medical Education Technology Editorial Office 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.)

Research Integrity Advisors are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the challenges faced by researchers in collaborating across national borders due to growing geopolitical tensions. It specifically focuses on strategic areas such as microelectronics and quantum computing. The responses of major science nations, including the US and Europe, to China's rise as a global science node are also discussed. The article emphasizes the need for a global dialogue and responsible research practices that balance research security, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy. Ongoing efforts by international research funders to develop a code of conduct for responsible practices in international research collaborations are highlighted. The author suggests that by adhering to these proposals, the research community can contribute to a more inclusive and accessible global science system. [Extracted from the article]

Organizational climate and culture are important for research organizations because they foster research integrity and responsible conduct of research, reduce questionable research practices, and improve job satisfaction. The aim of our study was to explore how employees and students perceive organizational climate and its consequences in the university setting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with senior students and employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) from two different university schools: School of Medicine and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Participants were asked questions regarding perceived climate, working environment, and the role of the institution. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis approach. Three themes were identified. The first theme addressed the difference in the perception and understanding of organizational climate. The second theme dealt with institutional issues emanating from organizational climate. The third theme described the behavior of stakeholders in the formation of organizational climate. Organizational climate is important concept in academic organizations as it influences both employees, particularly early career researchers, and students. Institutional leadership can strongly influence organizational climate, which can in turn affect job and job satisfaction. Due to the importance of personal morality on everyday decision-making, virtue-based research integrity training could be useful in improving academic institutions' organizational climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for trustworthy research. Rules are important in setting RI standards and improving research practice, but they can lead to increased bureaucracy; without commensurate commitment amongst researchers toward RI, they are unlikely to improve research practices. In this paper, we explore how to combine rules and commitment in fostering RI. Research institutions can govern RI using markets (using incentives), bureaucracies (using rules), and network processes (through commitment and agreements). Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes, as part of the lifeworld, can legitimize systems – that is, market or bureaucratic governance modes. This can regulate and support RI practices in an efficient way. Systems can also become dominant and repress consensus processes. Fostering RI requires a balance between network, market and bureaucratic governance modes. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can be combined with bureaucratic rules. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated different governance modes, resulting in a normatively grounded and efficient approach to fostering RI. Based on this case, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender1 across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well.2 However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrity in research is essential so that research can do what it is supposed to do: help us discover – or get closer to – the truth about the world and how it works. Research integrity means conducting oneself in ways that are worthy of the trust that the public invests in science. Efforts over the past five decades to ensure that researchers conduct themselves with integrity have focused on regulating researcher behavior. The suite of regulatory requirements – over 100 of them – is typically managed by an office of research compliance at universities and research institutions. The regulations, and the accompanying rules and policies, have created a regulatory-industrial complex that, while necessary, should give us pause. With the proliferation of regulations, professional organizations and certifications blossom, providing much-needed training and vouching for expertise in particular regulations. This credibility is crucial, but it also gives a false impression that we can regulate our way to ethical science. Creating a regulatory-industrial complex will not achieve our goal of an ethical research enterprise. We need to build ethical institutional cultures, engage the commitment of the entire research enterprise, and do the hard work of holding accountable the entire research ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dirk Smeesters case is one of the most well-documented and widely publicized cases of research misconduct to date. We investigate, using a case study approach, which of Smeesters' articles were found to be unreliable and recommended for retraction, which were retracted, and which were not. We also investigate by whom, when, and how these fraudulent articles were retracted. We found that only six retraction notices exist for the seven Smeesters' fraudulent articles that were recommended for retraction. For four of the six retraction notices, there were no explicit markers that clearly indicated who wrote them (e.g., the editor and/or the publisher). Smeesters' flawed articles were retracted in 97.6 days on average by the retracting journals. Retraction practices in these elite marketing and social psychology journals ranged from a seeming failure to retract (i.e., no record of a retraction notice) to a fair (i.e., informative and transparent) retraction. We also emphasize the ramifications of failing to retract an article whose findings are based on fabricated data. We conclude by listing the lessons learned from the Smeesters case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A consistent mitigation strategy used in sponsored research to manage a financial conflict of interest (FCOI) is disclosure in publications. While federal funding regulations require mitigation strategies to be monitored through the end of the project's term, manuscripts are often published after the project term has ended. We examined whether it would be valuable to extend monitoring of publications for compliance with requirements for disclosure beyond the end date of a project's term and, if so, for how long after the term has ended. Using publicly available databases, we identified FCOI reports from public universities and analyzed disclosure completion in the years before and after the end of the project's term. We found that 80.2% of FCOI reports in our sample had a publication in which a conflicted Investigator served as an author, yet less than half (43.6%) of these publications contained disclosure statements acknowledging the known FCOI. We also found that publication most commonly occurred one year after the end of the project's term. These findings indicate that an effective way to support accountability and accuracy of the scientific record would be to extend monitoring of disclosure in publications through one year following the end of the project's term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers, organizations, and governments are trying to foster research integrity. In France, the law recently permitted the appointment of research integrity officers (RIOs) in each university, to promote research integrity and handle misconducts. Since we assumed that having adequate bodies to deal with research integrity could foster research integrity, we wanted to understand how this might work more concretely. We interviewed 11 newly appointed RIOs in medical schools about how they perceive their role and cope with their responsibilities. We analyzed data following the Paillé and Muchielli's thematic analysis approach. The RIOs report a strong and interesting appropriation of concepts of research integrity, which allows them to warrant their role. Although they report that they did not seek their appointment, they show a real desire to cope with their responsibilities. They are willing to build a role which is currently poorly defined. They assert their legitimacy through their position and experience. They identify themselves with a preventive and corrective role, in an altruistic way. They emphasize their independent and collective role, congruent with other actors. The RIOs intend to be enablers of a responsible conduct of research. These results are encouraging about the potential impact of RIOs to foster research integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) natural language processing (NLP) systems have the potential to be widely used in scientific and scholarly publications. These systems convert unstructured text into structured text suitable for computation, allowing computers to interact with human language. While NLP systems can generate coherent and informative text, there are concerns about accuracy, bias, relevance, and reasoning. They may produce erroneous or misleading information and reflect biases in the data they are trained on. Therefore, any text generated by an NLP system should be checked by a domain expert for accuracy, bias, relevance, and reasoning. Researchers should also prioritize accountability, transparency, and data integrity when using NLP systems in research. The article calls for the adoption of policies on the use of AI in research and highlights ongoing ethical considerations in this field. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Retos: Nuevas Perspectivas de Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación is the property of Federacion Espanola de Asociaciones de Docentes de Educacion Fisica 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.)

AbstractThis column reports on five conference sessions from following conferences: American Library Association Annual Conference 2023, International Group of Ex Libris Users (IGeLU) 2023 Conference, and the 2023 Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) Conference. Topics included are browser changes that will impact access to resources via federated authentication, utilizing OpenURL to increase resource discovery in Primo through an implementation of Article Galaxy Scholar, and discussion on challenges and opportunities in scholarly publishing with the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms. Additional topics recounted cover open science practices and the impact on research integrity and why the principles of sustainability, justice, resilience need to be considered in open access efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the use of large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) in academia and research. LLMs are AI programs that can generate content in response to human language questions and have various applications in research. While LLMs offer benefits such as improved productivity, they also pose risks, including the potential for fraudulent research papers. Journals have implemented policies to address the use of AI in manuscripts, and efforts are being made to detect papers with unacknowledged LLM use. However, detecting AI-generated text can be challenging for human reviewers, and current software programs designed to detect AI-generated text have variable performance. The academic publishing industry is working on developing its own AI detectors, but their availability is limited. Ensuring the appropriate use of AI in research is crucial for maintaining the integrity of healthcare research. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides ten simple rules for successfully carrying out funded research projects. The rules include focusing efforts on achieving project goals and deliverables, defining and assigning responsibilities to team members, scheduling regular meetings, complying with regulatory and ethical guidelines, following predefined data analysis plans, using validated methods for data collection and keeping backups of data, implementing the research budget and promoting administrative management, assigning enough time for reports, publishing findings and sharing results, and sharing results with the general public. The authors emphasize the importance of adhering to ethical practices and research integrity, as well as the need for effective communication and dissemination of research findings. [Extracted from the article]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Data sharing improves the value, synthesis, and integrity of research, but rates are low. Data sharing might be improved if data sharing policies were prominent and actionable at every stage of research. We aimed to systematically describe the epidemiology of data sharing policies across the health research lifecycle.This was a cross‐sectional analysis of the data sharing policies of the largest health research funders, all national ethics committees, all clinical trial registries, the highest‐impact medical journals, and all medical research data repositories. Stakeholders' official websites, online reports, and other records were reviewed up to May 2022. The strength and characteristics of their data sharing policies were assessed, including their policies on data sharing intention statements (a.k.a. data accessibility statements) and on data sharing specifically for coronavirus disease studies. Data were manually extracted in duplicate, and policies were descriptively analysed by their stakeholder and characteristics.Nine hundred and thirty‐five eligible stakeholders were identified: 110 funders, 124 ethics committees, 18 trial registries, 273 journals, and 410 data repositories. Data sharing was required by 41% (45/110) of funders, no ethics committees or trial registries, 19% (52/273) of journals and 6% (24/410) of data repositories. Among funder types, a higher proportion of private (63%, 35/55) and philanthropic (67%, 4/6) funders required data sharing than public funders (12%, 6/49).Data sharing requirements, and even recommendations, were insufficient across health research. Where data sharing was required or recommended, there was limited guidance on implementation. We describe multiple pathways to improve the implementation of data sharing. Public funders and ethics committees are two stakeholders with particularly important untapped opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The integrity of clinical research and machine learning models in healthcare heavily relies on the quality of underlying clinical laboratory data. However, the preprocessing of this data to ensure its reliability and accuracy remains a significant challenge due to variations in data recording and reporting standards. Methods: We developed lab2clean, a novel algorithm aimed at automating and standardizing the cleaning of retrospective clinical laboratory results data. lab2clean was implemented as two R functions specifically designed to enhance data conformance and plausibility by standardizing result formats and validating result values. The functionality and performance of the algorithm were evaluated using two extensive electronic medical record (EMR) databases, encompassing various clinical settings. Results: lab2clean effectively reduced the variability of laboratory results and identified potentially erroneous records. Upon deployment, it demonstrated effective and fast standardization and validation of substantial laboratory data records. The evaluation highlighted significant improvements in the conformance and plausibility of lab results, confirming the algorithm's efficacy in handling large-scale data sets. Conclusions: lab2clean addresses the challenge of preprocessing and cleaning clinical laboratory data, a critical step in ensuring high-quality data for research outcomes. It offers a straightforward, efficient tool for researchers, improving the quality of clinical laboratory data, a major portion of healthcare data. Thereby, enhancing the reliability and reproducibility of clinical research outcomes and clinical machine learning models. Future developments aim to broaden its functionality and accessibility, solidifying its vital role in healthcare data management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the scientific community becomes aware of low replicability rates in the extant literature, peer-reviewed journals have begun implementing initiatives with the goal of improving replicability. Such initiatives center around various rules to which authors must adhere to demonstrate their engagement in best practices. Preliminary evidence in the psychological science literature demonstrates a degree of efficacy in these initiatives. With such efficacy in place, it would be advantageous for other fields of behavioral sciences to adopt similar measures. This letter provides a discussion on lessons learned from psychological science while similarly addressing the unique challenges of other sciences to adopt measures that would be most appropriate for their field. We offer broad considerations for peer-reviewed journals in their implementation of specific policies and recommend that governing bodies of science prioritize the funding of research that addresses these measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the use of research circles as an ethical research approach in educational settings, involving schools, families, and communities. The principles guiding research circles include democracy, empowerment, social context, and agency. By involving all stakeholders as equal partners in the research process, research circles aim to address ethical issues and maintain research integrity. The article presents a case study on the impact of a specialist autism provision in a UK primary school, highlighting positive outcomes for children's development and the importance of collaboration and communication. The article emphasizes the ethical and integrity aspects of research with schools, families, and communities and provides practical applications for implementing research circles in these settings. The text also discusses the process of data analysis and decision-making within a research committee, with a focus on data ownership and ensuring the trustworthiness of findings. The dissemination and publication of findings are determined based on the needs of the stakeholders and the context, with suggestions for including practical recommendations in staff research reports and parents' leaflets. [Extracted from the article]

Science-related populism is often used to undermine public trust in science. Good scientific practice contributes to public trust in science, whereas misconduct promotes public skepticism. Since research ethics are a vital part of research integrity, we argue that ethical misconduct potentially undermines trust in scientists, particularly among people with populist beliefs. Drawing on a quota sample of German citizens (N  = 1,321), the experimental study examines the influence of ethical conduct on trust in scientists, moderated by science-related populist beliefs. More specifically, we tested the influence of experimental deception (with and without debriefing) using a vignette design. The results of our study showed that ethical misconduct is negatively associated with trust in scientists. In addition, the relationship between ethical misconduct and trust in scientists was influenced by both science-related populist beliefs and science literacy. Although people with high science-related populist beliefs generally placed less trust in scientists, the negative effect was even more pronounced for people with low science-related populist beliefs. Our findings further revealed that ethical misconduct reduces trust in science among people with both low and high science literacy. This demonstrates the importance of researchers transparently discussing and reflecting on ethical research conduct to promote trust in scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cairo Consensus Statement on Research Integrity of Randomised Clinical Trials is a document that emphasizes the importance of ethical and professional principles in clinical trials. It provides guidelines for various stakeholders involved in clinical research, including trialists, ethics committees, journal editors, and peer-reviewers. The statement addresses issues related to trial approval, data integrity, reporting guidelines, and conflict of interest disclosures. It also highlights the need for transparent reporting of errors and deviations, as well as the use of data monitoring committees and translations in patient reported outcomes. The text calls for support and protection for both complainants and trialists and suggests areas for future research and development. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Post‐publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter. Objectives: We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post‐publication integrity issues in RCTs. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post‐publication research integrity concerns in RCTs. Data Collection and Analysis: The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post‐publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated. Main Results: The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross‐sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post‐publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post‐investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains. Conclusions: Various research integrity domains and issues covering post‐publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post‐publication integrity concerns in RCTs. Synopsis: Existing literature concerning post‐publication integrity issues in randomized clinical trials needs consolidation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the detrimental effects of current publishing practices in medical research. It highlights the rise of predatory journals, which exploit the pay-to-publish model and undermine the quality and integrity of scientific literature. It critiques the commercialization of scientific publishing, which prioritizes profit over rigorous peer review and quality control, leading to a proliferation of low-quality and potentially misleading research.