scholarly journals Unethical practices within medical research and publication – An exploratory study

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. D. Sivasubramaniam ◽  
M. Cosentino ◽  
L. Ribeiro ◽  
F. Marino
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Institutional Expectations ◽  
Community Impacts ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Research Councils ◽  
Negative Controls

AbstractThe data produced by the scientific community impacts on academia, clinicians, and the general public; therefore, the scientific community and other regulatory bodies have been focussing on ethical codes of conduct. Despite the measures taken by several research councils, unethical research, publishing and/or reviewing behaviours still take place. This exploratory study considers some of the current unethical practices and the reasons behind them and explores the ways to discourage these within research and other professional disciplinary bodies. These interviews/discussions with PhD students, technicians, and academics/principal investigators (PIs) (N=110) were conducted mostly in European higher education institutions including UK, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Czech Republic and Netherlands.Through collegiate discussions, sharing experiences and by examining previously published/reported information, authors have identified several less reported behaviours. Some of these practices are mainly influenced either by the undue institutional expectations of research esteem or by changes in the journal review process. These malpractices can be divided in two categories relating to (a) methodological malpractices including data management, and (b) those that contravene publishing ethics. The former is mostly related to “committed bias”, by which the author selectively uses the data to suit their own hypothesis, methodological malpractice relates to selection of out-dated protocols that are not suited to the intended work. Although these are usually unintentional, incidences of intentional manipulations have been reported to authors of this study. For example, carrying out investigations without positive (or negative) controls; but including these from a previous study. Other methodological malpractices include unfair repetitions to gain statistical significance, or retrospective ethical approvals. In contrast, the publication related malpractices such as authorship malpractices, ethical clearance irregularities have also been reported. The findings also suggest a globalised approach with clear punitive measures for offenders is needed to tackle this problem.

Significance tests: Necessary but not sufficient

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-222
Author(s):  
Louis G. Tassinary
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Significance Tests ◽  
Experimental Control

Chow (1996) offers a reconceptualization of statistical significance that is reasoned and comprehensive. Despite a somewhat rough presentation, his arguments are compelling and deserve to be taken seriously by the scientific community. It is argued that his characterization of literal replication, types of research, effect size, and experimental control are in need of revision.

scholarly journals Coronal Microleakage Assessed by Polymicrobial Markers

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro Rodrigues Britto ◽  
Nicholas J. Grimaudo ◽  
Frank J. Vertucci
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Gutta Percha ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Bacterial Migration ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Negative Controls

Abstract Studies have shown significant bacterial leakage following exposure of sealed root canals to artificial and natural saliva. The objective of this study was to determine contamination via bacterial migration in artificial saliva in endodontically treated teeth using different obturation techniques and sealers. A total of 144 extracted, human mandibular anterior teeth were cleaned and shaped to a #40 master apical file using hand and rotary instrumentation. One hundred and twenty teeth were divided into two experimental groups. The teeth in Group 1 were obturated with gutta-percha using lateral compaction and five different sealers, and the teeth in Group 2 were obturated with gutta-percha using thermomechanical compaction and five different sealers. The remaining 24 teeth were prepared as positive and negative controls. All specimens, except the negative controls, were inoculated every five days with Anaerobic streptococci (NCTC 9891) related to Peptostreptococcus micros and Prevotella intermedia (ATCC 25611). The contamination onset time was continuously recorded and turbid broths cultured for bacteria identification. The controls behaved as expected. Regardless of the combination between obturation techniques and different sealers, all broths became turbid during this experiment. The correlation between the obturation techniques and the sealers revealed statistical significance using ANOVA (p<0.0001), followed by the Duncan Multiple Range Test, which determined the ranking between these interactions. The combination of MicroSeal obturation technique with Ketac-Endo sealer allowed a slower rate of coronal-apical bacterial migration. Citation Leandro Rodrigues Britto LR, Grimaudo NJ, Vertucci FJ. Coronal Microleakage Assessed by Polymicrobial Markers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 August;(4)3:001-010.

Professional Society Codes of Conduct: Their Use & Misuse – An Ethical Problem Upon Which the Integrity of Science Rests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadredin Moosavi
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Professional Society ◽  
Professional Societies

&lt;p&gt;The scientific community has a long history of self-regulation, with accepted public standards regarding the ethical conduct of research, treatment of human subjects and plagiarism. Violations of these widely accepted standards have been investigated and enforced via universities, funding agencies and publishers using their employment, financial and copyright relationships with members of the scientific community. Some modicum of fairness protecting both sides of the relationship arises from an open process, the ability of either party to seek other partners for their work and public shaming of miscarriages of justice committed by either side. By focusing directly on scientific work and the evidence used to support it where scientific expertise is relevant; these standards have worked reasonably well in keeping science honest without silencing scholars whose work is not currently accepted by the mainstream. Such science is by definition self-correcting and warrants public faith in the integrity of its findings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recently, these standards have been expanded into broad Codes of Conduct including regulation of behavior normally reserved for national legal systems built on clearly defined constitutional due process rights, which professional societies lack the jurisdiction, expertise, resources and will to protect. While lacking legal authority, the shadow tribunals these codes create have significant ability to impact the careers of those accused of transgressing their dictates. Such extra-legal bodies, often staffed by non-scientists serving as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury, undermine academic freedom and the expression of diverse ideas required for a healthy, inclusive scientific community. Instead of being judged on their research, scientists now risk being bullied out of the field on the basis of social considerations reflecting the opinion of unelected code compliance officers acting to fulfill the agenda of professional society leaders rather than those officials elected to enforce national laws. These behavioral tribunals are the anti-thesis of scientific practice and threaten to undermine public faith in the integrity of science.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This presentation examines several cases from the recent scientific literature. The merits of each case are evaluated using the professional society code of conduct applied to the scientists in question, with outcomes for the parties involved and wider implications of the case discussed. The results suggest that professional society codes of conduct remain capable of assessing the merits of scientific research though social pressure to favor particular demographic groups is undermining the process. The same analysis indicates that professional societies are not competent in assessing behavior via their codes of conduct due to fundamentally flawed investigatory mechanisms and lack of due process protections. Strong biases in society leadership allows misuse of codes of conduct to unlawfully impose a policy agenda on the community, despite evidence that such policy is at odds with, and harmful to, scientific practice. Public belief in the integrity of science will erode if the scientific community fails to disavow and halt the misuse of professional society codes of conduct to regulate behavior in a fashion that no national legal system would condone.&lt;/p&gt;

scholarly journals An empirical evidence of ethical climate index in rural banks from Board of Directors Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunardi Sunardi ◽  
Hafid Aditya Pradesa
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Boards Of Directors ◽  
Ethical Climate ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Climate Index ◽  
Moral Sensitivity ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
The Common

The existence of the common image that the management of the rural bank is  not yet professional because of some unethical practices are still happening. Rural bank that is well known for Indonesian people since its target markets are mostly in the rural area. The aim of the study is to investigate what are the most important factors that are reflecting ethical climate in rural banks. The studyinvolves 153  directors of rural banks in Indonesia as respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess individual parameters in the model, feasibility and the statistical significance of the estimates parameter. The findings show that that ethical climate index is most reflected by collective moral sensitivity, but in contrary boards of directors in rural banks also recognize the lowest perception in this dimension. This would sense an urgency to fostering moral sensitivity among all hierarchies, from top management to the lowest levels in the rural banking.

UNETHICAL HR PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-44
Author(s):  
Dr Sumbul Tahir ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Resource ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Hr Practices ◽  
Human Resource Policies ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Theoretical Paper ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Policies And Practices

Purpose: To throw light on some unethical Human resource policies followed by companies and suggest ways to overcome them. Approach: This is a theoretical paper designed to provide conceptual clarity on the subject. An exploratory study aims to enhance recognition and understanding of some policies and practices causing discomfort to employees. Findings: Several policies reported to be unethical by employees worldwide have been described in detail. Practical implications: This paper will offer insights to HR professionals encouraging them to realize and change some policies and practices that have become a part of their organizations. It also will encourage people from other fields to learn how they can flag unethical practices in their organizations.

Hard Surface Carrier Test for Efficacy Testing of Disinfectants: Collaborative Study

1992 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R Rubino ◽  
Janice M Bauer ◽  
Paul H Clarke ◽  
Betsy B Woodward ◽  
Fran C Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
The Other ◽  
Performance Standard ◽  
Hard Surface ◽  
Upper Confidence Limit ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Negative Controls ◽  
Carrier Test ◽  
Good Agreement

Abstract A collaborative study was undertaken to evaluate a new disinfectant efficacy method called the hard surface carrier test. This new method is a qualitative carrier test that uses disposable glass carriers and standardized bacterial cultures. Ten laboratories tested 6 disinfectant-type formulations, which included positive and negative controls, against 3 microorganisms. No significant differences were found among the 10 laboratories for tests with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella choleraesuis, but a small but statistically significant difference was present among laboratories for Staphylococcus aureus. The majority of data for this organism showed very good agreement; however, several tests exhibited slightly higher positive responses, which resulted in this overall difference. This difference was not considered significant within the scope and precision of this method or when compared with results for the other 2 organisms. The initial estimates of pure intralaboratory variance, determined from mean squares from analysis of variance results, were 1.009,0.295, and 1.553 for P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and S. choleraesuis, respectively. The experimental error for S. aureus was 3-5 times smaller than for the other 2 organisms, which helps explain the statistical significance of the results observed with this organism. Final estimates of intralaboratory variance obtained after dropping nonsignificant terms from the models were 0.90,0.30, and 0.58 for P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and S. choleraesuis, respectively. Small but statistically significant differences were noted in the formulation means for P. aeruginosa and S. aureus but not for S. choleraesuis. The results of this study suggested a performance standard of ≤2 positive carriers out of 60 tested for S. aureus and S. choleraesuis, and ≤3 positive carriers out of 60 tested for P. aeruginosa. This standard was derived from an analysis of the data by calculating an expected count of positive carriers and a 95% upper confidence limit for a set of 60 carriers. The method has been adopted first action by AOAC International.

scholarly journals Effect of CPP/ACP on Initial Bioadhesion to Enamel and DentinIn Situ

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susann Grychtol ◽  
Sabine Basche ◽  
Matthias Hannig ◽  
Christian Hannig
Keyword(s):  
Streptococcus Mutans ◽  
Bacterial Colonization ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Pellicle Formation ◽  
Dental Hard Tissues ◽  
Tooth Mousse ◽  
Negative Controls ◽  
Bovine Enamel

The presentin situstudy investigated the influence of a preparation containing CPP/ACP (caseinphosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate) (GC Tooth mousse) on initial bacterial colonization of enamel and dentin. Therefore, pellicle formation was performedin situon bovine enamel and dentin specimens fixed to individual upper jaw splints worn by 8 subjects. After 1 min of pellicle formation GC Tooth mousse was used according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Rinses with chlorhexidine served as positive controls. Specimens carried without any rinse served as negative controls. After 8 h overnight exposure of the splints, bacterial colonization was quantified by fluorescence microscopy (DAPI and BacLight live/dead staining). Additionally, the colony forming units (CFU) were determined after desorption. Furthermore, the effects onStreptococcus mutansbacteria were testedin vitro(BacLight). There was no significant impact of CPP/ACP on initial bacterial colonization proved with DAPI and BacLight. Determination of CFU showed statistical significance for CPP/ACP to reduce bacterial adherence on enamel. Thein vitroinvestigation indicated no antimicrobial effects for CPP/ACP onStreptococcus mutanssuspension. Under the chosen conditions, CPP/ACP (GC Tooth mousse) had no significant impact on initial biofilm formation on dental hard tissues. The tested preparation cannot be recommended for biofilm management.

Improving a research culture in educational psychology to value transparency over novelty takes establishing new norms, grassroots advocacy, and top-down leadership

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Thomas Mellor
Keyword(s):  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
New World ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Research Culture ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Grassroots Groups ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Grassroots Advocacy

Many scientific disciplines are in the midst of reproducibility crisis. The cumulative harm of many seemingly modest sins are adding up to a diminished confidence in disturbingly large areas of research. These practices, which are enabled by a default towards opacity and by valuing statistical significance, impact, or novelty, undermine our credibility as a community that is expected to act in accordance with scientific ideals. Changing this reality can no longer be in the hands of the idealistic or privileged few, but must be the focus of every stakeholder in the scientific community. The field of educational psychology is well positioned to act toward this goal. This change is possible, and will transform the reproducibility crisis into a credibility revolution. It will take specific actions by both grassroots groups to build communities of practice plus the leadership of policy makers who can set standards for evaluating articles, grants, and hiring packets. These improved standards must ensure that transparency, rigor, and credibility are valued above novelty, impact, and incredibility. Grassroots groups advocate for change, share experience, and become an opportunity to create trainings so that the next generation of educational psychology researchers have the experience needed to sustain these early moves. We can take inspiration from other communities that have made shifts toward better practices, and can specifically prepare for this new world by modeling constructive evaluations of such open practices as those that take place through badging initiatives. These instances provide opportunities for emulating trail-blazers, training for new practices such as preregistration, and constructively evaluating or criticizing practice in ways that advances the reputation of all involved. This article is available as a preprint on EdArXiv:

scholarly journals Should research misconduct be criminalized?

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Dal-Ré ◽  
Lex M Bouter ◽  
Pim Cuijpers ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Søren Holm
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Research Fraud ◽  
New Research

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

scholarly journals Trust and professionalism in science: medical codes as a model for scientific negligence?

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Desmond ◽  
Kris Dierickx
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Textual Analysis ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Oecd Countries ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Professional Communities ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Background Professional communities such as the medical community are acutely concerned with negligence: the category of misconduct where a professional does not live up to the standards expected of a professional of similar qualifications. Since science is currently strengthening its structures of self-regulation in parallel to the professions, this raises the question to what extent the scientific community is concerned with negligence, and if not, whether it should be. By means of comparative analysis of medical and scientific codes of conduct, we aim to highlight the role (or lack thereof) of negligence provisions in codes of conduct for scientists, and to discuss the normative consequences for future codes of conduct. Methods We collected scientific and medical codes of conduct in a selection of OECD countries, and submitted each code of conduct to comparative textual analysis. Results Negligence is invariably listed as an infraction of the norms of integrity in medical codes of conduct, but only rarely so in the scientific codes. When the latter list negligence, they typically do not provide any detail on the meaning of ‘negligence’. Discussion Unlike codes of conduct for professionals, current codes of conduct for scientists are largely silent on the issue of negligence, or explicitly exclude negligence as a type of misconduct. In the few cases where negligence is stipulated to constitute misconduct, no responsibilities are identified that would help prevent negligence. While we caution against unreasonable negligence provisions as well as disproportionate sanctioning systems, we do argue that negligence provisions are crucial for justified trust in the scientific community, and hence that there is a very strong rationale for including negligence provisions in codes of conduct.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document