Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia.Knut Jørgen Vie - 2022 - Science and Engineering Ethics 28 (6):1-19.
    Researchers sometimes engage in various forms of dishonesty and unethical behavior, which has led to regulatory efforts to ensure that they work according to acceptable standards. Such regulation is a difficult task, as research is a diverse and dynamic endeavor. Researchers can disagree about what counts as good and acceptable standards, and these standards are constantly developing. This paper presents and discusses recent changes in research integrity and ethics regulation in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Recognizing that research norms are developed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The terasem mind uploading experiment.Martine Rothblatt - 2012 - International Journal of Machine Consciousness 4 (01):141-158.
  • How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies.Robert Klitzman - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):193-197.
    Informed consent is crucial in research, but potential participants may not all speak the same language, posing questions that have not been examined concerning decisions by institutional review boards and research ethics committees’ about the need for researchers to translate consent forms and other study materials. Sixty US IRBs were contacted, and leaders from 34 and an additional 12 members and administrators were interviewed. IRBs face a range of problems about translation of informed consent documents, questionnaires and manuals—what, when and (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence: Table 1.Robert Klitzman - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (4):224.
    Introduction Scholars have debated how to define coercion and undue influence, but how institutional review boards (IRBs) view and make decisions about these issues in actual cases has not been explored. Methods I contacted the leadership of 60 US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health funding), and interviewed 39 IRB leaders or administrators from 34 of these institutions (response rate=55%), and 7 members. Results IRBs wrestled with defining of ‘coercion’ (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US.Robert Klitzman - 2011 - BMC Medical Ethics 12 (1):13.
    Background: Centralization of IRB reviews have been increasing in the US and elsewhere, but many questions about it remain. In the US, a few centralized IRBs (CIRBs) have been established, but how they do and could operate remain unclear. Methods: I contacted 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed leaders from 34 (response rate = 55%) and an additional 12 members and administrators. Results: These interviewees had often interacted with (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • How IRB leaders view and approach challenges raised by industry-funded research.R. Klitzman - 2013 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 35 (3):9-17.