scholarly journals Reporting ethics approval in health and social sciences articles. An audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Asplund ◽  
Kerstin Hulter Åsberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
The Social ◽  
General Data

Abstract Background. Previous studies have indicated that the failure to report ethics approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act applies to all human research and requests that personal data, as defined by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. Methods. Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and the social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. Results. Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with a somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p<0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethics approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p<0.01), (b) articles with only 1-2 authors (p<0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p<0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethics approval. Conclusions. We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strictly adhered to, in health science articles. Failure to report ethics approval is approximately three times more common in the social sciences. Adherence needs to be improved, particularly in observational studies, articles with few authors and social science research.

scholarly journals Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Asplund ◽  
Kerstin Hulter Åsberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Ethical Approval

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated that failure to report ethical approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act requests that sensitive personal data, in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review, irrespective of academic discipline. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. Methods Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. Results Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p < 0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethical approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p < 0.01), (b) articles with only 1–2 authors (p < 0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p < 0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethical approval. Conclusions We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strict, in health science articles. Failure to report ethical approval is about three times more frequent in social sciences compared to health sciences. Improved adherence seems needed particularly in observational studies, in articles with few authors and in social science research.

Environment and Health Research in China: The State of the Field

2013 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 255-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Holdaway
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Environment And Health ◽  
The Social ◽  
Recent Developments

AbstractIn the context of this symposium, this article reviews social science research in the emerging field of environment and health in China, with a particular focus on the impacts of pollution. It begins with a discussion of the particular nature of China's environment-related health problems, distinguishing the different challenges presented by diseases of poverty, affluence and transition. It then reviews recent developments in policy and civil society with regard to environment and health, and the extent to which work in the social sciences has advanced our knowledge of these and of state–society interactions. The article concludes with some reflections on the need for and challenges of interdisciplinary and international collaboration in this area.

Literature Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 158-162
Author(s):  
Mathieu Ouimet ◽  
Pierre-Olivier Bédard
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Review Protocol

This chapter highlights literature review. Reviewing the published literature is one of the key activities of social science research, as a way to position one’s academic contribution, but also to get a bird’s eye view of what the relevant literature says on a given topic or research question. Many guides have been created to assist academic researchers and students in conducting a literature review, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate method to do so. One of the reasons for this lack of consensus is the plurality of epistemological attitudes that coexist in the social sciences. Before initiating a literature review, the researcher should start by clarifying the need for and the purpose of the review. Once this has been clarified, the actual review protocol, tools, and databases to be used will need to be determined to strike a balance between the scope of the study and the depth of the review.

Bridging the gap between the social science and the social ontology of collective memory

2019 ◽  
pp. 175069801987608
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Blustein
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Collective Memory ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Margaret Gilbert ◽  
Social Media Site ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collective Remembering

It is commonplace to attribute memories to groups of individuals both large and small. Attributions of memories to groups are also found in social science research. This article proposes using philosophical accounts from the literature on social ontology to help clarify and deepen our understanding of how these terms are being employed in the social sciences. Two contrasting accounts of collective remembering are presented: the joint commitment account derived from the seminal work of Margaret Gilbert, and the participatory intentions account based on Christopher Kutz’s analysis of collective action. The implications of these accounts for clarifying notions of collective memory and remembering in the social sciences are explored through two case studies—one involving a social media site that promotes sharing of memories among users and the other concerning organizational remembering.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document