Objectivity for the research worker

In the last decade, many problematic cases of scientific conduct have been diagnosed; some of which involve outright fraud (e.g., Stapel, 2012) others are more subtle (e.g., supposed evidence of extrasensory perception; Bem, 2011). These and similar problems can be interpreted as caused by lack of scientific objectivity. The current philosophical theories of objectivity do not provide scientists with conceptualizations that can be effectively put into practice in remedying these issues. We propose a novel way of thinking about objectivity for individual scientists; a negative and dynamic approach.We provide a philosophical conceptualization of objectivity that is informed by empirical research. In particular, it is our intention to take the first steps in providing an empirically and methodologically informed inventory of factors that impair the scientific practice. The inventory will be compiled into a negative conceptualization (i.e., what is not objective), which could in principle be used by individual scientists to assess (deviations from) objectivity of scientific practice. We propose a preliminary outline of a usable and testable instrument for indicating the objectivity of scientific practice.

Integrating the history of science into broader discussions of research integrity and fraud

This introductory article frames our special issue in terms of how historicizing research integrity and fraud can benefit current discussions of scientific conduct and the need to improve public trust in science.

Scientific Misconduct—Insights From the Work of an Ethics Committee

Scientific misconduct does not only relate to falsifying scientific data or plagiarism but may also include improper handling of authorship. A researcher may be cited as author of a manuscript without having contributed to the scientific work involved, another who has fulfilled the requirements of authorship is omitted or his/her name does not appear in the order, which would have been appropriate. All these may reflect various degrees of dishonesty and improper scientific conduct. There are even more severe cases, in which scientific research is sponsored, conducted, and sometimes even published by employees of vested parties who prefer their involvement not being disclosed, using proxy authors instead. This form of ghost authorship may sometimes amount to felony. As chair of the Ethics Committee (M.G.) and Dean (E.G.), both at the Sackler Medical School, Tel Aviv University, we report on our insights related to authorship and present 2 representative cases.

Role of the Clinical Research Coordinator in Orthopaedic Research: Making Research Less Onerous

ABSTRACT Conducting clinical research can be challenging. The challenges are derived from not only the logistical difficulties of proper scientific conduct but also the many regulatory bodies that are in place to safeguard against harm in subjects involved in clinical research. With the advent of the role of the Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) these challenges have improved. However, many don't understand the exact role of the CRC. Grimm NL, Tainter DM. Role of the Clinical Research Coordinator in Orthopaedic Research: Making Research Less Onerous. The Duke Orthop J 2017;7(1):1-2.