Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers.

ABSTRACT: Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.

SUBMITTER: Asiedu E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8307908 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers.

Asiedu Edward E Karlan Dean D Lambon-Quayefio Monica M Udry Christopher C

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20210701 29

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonp ...[more]

PMID: 34253610

Similar Datasets

Call for papers

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC1432181 | biostudies-literature

Stem cells: science, policy, and ethics.

Project description:Human embryonic stem cells offer the promise of a new regenerative medicine in which damaged adult cells can be replaced with new cells. Research is needed to determine the most viable stem cell lines and reliable ways to promote the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells into specific cell types (neurons, muscle cells, etc). To create new cell lines, it is necessary to destroy preimplantation blastocysts. This has led to an intense debate that threatens to limit embryonic stem cell research. The profound ethical issues raised call for informed, dispassionate debate.

| S-EPMC525749 | biostudies-literature

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science.

Project description:ContextThe retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent.ObjectiveThe aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies.MethodWe analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar.ResultsWe find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review.ConclusionsUnfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies.

| S-EPMC10168558 | biostudies-literature

Zoological Research Call for Papers: Special Issue on Pain, Addiction, and Anesthesia

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10559083 | biostudies-literature

Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap Project.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC2271136 | biostudies-literature

Vulnerability in research ethics: A call for assessing vulnerability and implementing protections.

Project description:Ethics standards reference the need for special consideration of vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, incarcerated individuals, and minors. The concept of vulnerability is poorly conceptualized in the medical sciences where it originated, and its application to the social sciences is even more challenging. Social science researchers may unwittingly fail to appreciate preexisting vulnerabilities and indeed may be responsible for inducing new research-related vulnerability. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive coding of country-level vulnerability designations. Specifically, we coded all 355 official documents governing social/behavioral human subjects research for the 107 countries with such regulations and identified 68 distinct vulnerability categories. The data reveal substantial regional variation, overemphasis of categories derived from medical sciences, neglect of critical categories such as displacement, and likely heterogeneity within and across groups. The article provides a conceptual framework that shifts the problem away from static, enumerated categories toward emphasis on research-induced vulnerability. Based on our conceptualization and coding, we present a framework for assessing vulnerability and implementing appropriate protections.

| S-EPMC11348164 | biostudies-literature

How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section.Study design and settingAn online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.ResultsAlmost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order.ConclusionScience and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports.

| S-EPMC10802960 | biostudies-literature

Digital Health Strategies to Fight COVID-19 Worldwide: Challenges, Recommendations, and a Call for Papers.

Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created an urgent need for coordinated mechanisms to respond to the outbreak across health sectors, and digital health solutions have been identified as promising approaches to address this challenge. This editorial discusses the current situation regarding digital health solutions to fight COVID-19 as well as the challenges and ethical hurdles to broad and long-term implementation of these solutions. To decrease the risk of infection, telemedicine has been used as a successful health care model in both emergency and primary care. Official communication plans should promote facile and diverse channels to inform people about the pandemic and to avoid rumors and reduce threats to public health. Social media platforms such as Twitter and Google Trends analyses are highly beneficial to model pandemic trends as well as to monitor the evolution of patients' symptoms or public reaction to the pandemic over time. However, acceptability of digital solutions may face challenges due to potential conflicts with users' cultural, moral, and religious backgrounds. Digital tools can provide collective public health benefits; however, they may be intrusive and can erode individual freedoms or leave vulnerable populations behind. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the strong potential of various digital health solutions that have been tested during the crisis. More concerted measures should be implemented to ensure that future digital health initiatives will have a greater impact on the epidemic and meet the most strategic needs to ease the life of people who are at the forefront of the crisis.

| S-EPMC7298971 | biostudies-literature

Structured Case-Based Ethics Discussion for Trainees and Faculty on Dermatopathology.

Project description:IntroductionEthical and professional dilemmas are part of the day-to-day practice of medicine, including within dermatopathology (e.g., ethical implications of self-referring skin biopsies for pathology interpretation). There is a need for teaching aids that dermatology educators can easily access to help provide ethics education.MethodsWe held an hour-long, faculty-facilitated, interactive, virtual discussion about ethical issues in dermatopathology. The session followed a structured, case-based format. We administered anonymous online feedback surveys after the session and used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare participants' before and after responses.ResultsSeventy-two individuals from two academic institutions participated in the session. We collected 35 total responses (49%) from dermatology residents (n = 15), dermatology faculty (n = 14), medical students (n = 2), and other providers and learners (n = 4). Feedback was largely positive, with 21 attendees (60%) indicating they learned a few things and 11 (31%) indicating they learned a great deal. Additionally, 32 participants (91%) indicated they would recommend the session to a colleague. Our analysis showed that attendees had a greater self-perceived level of achievement for each of our three objectives after the session.DiscussionThis dermatoethics session is structured so as to be easily shared, deployed, and built on by other institutions. We hope that other institutions will use our materials and results to improve upon the foundation presented here and that this framework will be used by other medical specialties seeking to foster ethics education in their training programs.

| S-EPMC10185701 | biostudies-literature

Social dynamics of science.

Project description:The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several "science of science" theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data.

| S-EPMC3545262 | biostudies-other

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data