Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Minimizing Questionable Research Practices – The Role of Norms, Counter Norms, and Micro-Organizational Ethics Discussion.Solmaz Filiz Karabag, Christian Berggren, Jolanta Pielaszkiewicz & Bengt Gerdin - forthcoming - Journal of Academic Ethics:1-27.
    Breaches of research integrity have gained considerable attention due to high-profile scandals involving questionable research practices by reputable scientists. These practices include plagiarism, manipulation of authorship, biased presentation of findings and misleading reports of significance. To combat such practices, policymakers tend to rely on top-down measures, mandatory ethics training and stricter regulation, despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. In this study, we investigate the occurrence and underlying factors of questionable research practices (QRPs) through an original survey of 3,005 social and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Research Ethics Committee and Integrity Board Members’ Collaborative Decision Making in Cases in a Training Setting.E. Löfström, H. Pitkänen, A. Čekanauskaitė, V. Lukaševičienė, S. Kyllönen & E. Gefenas - forthcoming - Journal of Academic Ethics:1-25.
    This research focuses on how research ethics committee and integrity board members discuss and decide on solutions to case scenarios that involve a dimension of research ethics or integrity in collaborative settings. The cases involved issues around authorship, conflict of interest, disregard of good scientific practice and ethics review, and research with vulnerable populations (children and neonates). The cases were set in a university, a hospital, or a research institute. In the research, we used a deductive qualitative approach with thematic (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What Can We Learn From the Discussion on Anglophone Ethics Committees? An Analysis of Selected (Contested) Issues.Adrianna Surmiak - 2023 - Diametros 19 (76):15-29.
    Ethics committees enjoy both a long history and a strong presence in Anglophone countries, although simultaneously their functioning provokes debate in the social research community. In this paper, I analyse selected contested issues that revolve around three questions: 1) Who do ethics committees protect, and who should they? 2) Should ethics committees protect all research participants in the same way? 3) When can ethics committees intervene in the methodology of the research project under review? Analysing these disputes is important since (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes.Jessica Carniel, Andrew Hickey, Kim Southey, Annette Brömdal, Lynda Crowley-Cyr, Douglas Eacersall, Will Farmer, Richard Gehrmann, Tanya Machin & Yosheen Pillay - 2023 - Research Ethics 19 (2):139-156.
    Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations