Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing

Citation is an essential practice in scientific publishing. However, it is mandatory that citing the sources in a scientific work is performed in a proper manner. Manipulating citations in research articles is one form of academic research misconduct that violates publication ethics. Citation manipulation simply occurs for the purpose of increasing the number of citations of a researcher or a journal. Unfortunately, there has been a growing trend for this type of misconduct recently and this has not received much attention from the science community. The most effective solution to prevent the growth of such unethical practices is for reputable journals to impose stricter rules on reference evaluation criteria in order to emphasize on the appropriateness of the citations.

Personalising the dilemma: research ethics in fiction

Learning about research ethics and research integrity is greatly facilitated by case studies, which illuminate, ground and personalise abstract questions. This paper argues that fiction can provide similar learning experiences, incarnating ethical dilemmas through a medium that is highly accessible yet sophisticated in its depictions of how researchers behave. Examples of fictional illustrations are given to illustrate various themes such as animal experimentation, exploitation of the vulnerable, researcher bias and research fraud.

Motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial for Hepatitis C Virus investigational therapy in pregnancy

Limited research has been done among pregnant people participating in investigational drug trials. To enhance the ethical understanding of pregnant people’s perspectives on research participation, we sought to describe motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) treatment for chronic Hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy. Pregnant people with chronic HCV infection enrolled in an open-label, phase 1 study of LDV/SOF participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their reasons for participation and experiences within the study. Pregnant people took 12 weeks of LDV/SOF and were interviewed at enrollment and at the end of study. We recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, coded them using NVivo software, and performed inductive thematic analysis. Nine women completed the study yielding 18 interview transcripts. We identified two themes regarding motives and one regarding risk perception. Motives—(1) Women conceptualized study participation as part of the caregiving role they associate with motherhood; participating was viewed as an act of caregiving for their infants, their families, themselves, and other pregnant women with chronic HCV. (2) Women also noted that they faced multiple barriers to treatment prior to pregnancy that created a desire to receive therapy through trial participation. Risk perception—(3) Women acknowledged personal and fetal risk associated with participation. Acceptance of risk was influenced by women’s concepts of motherhood, preexisting knowledge of HCV and medical research, family members, intimate partners, or by the study design. Women enrolled in a phase 1 trial for chronic HCV therapy during pregnancy acknowledged risks of participation and were motivated by hopes for fetal and personal benefit and by lack of prenatal access to treatment. Ethical inclusion of pregnant people in research should acknowledge structural factors that contribute to vulnerability and data deficiencies for treatment in pregnancy.

Waving away waivers: an obligation to contribute to ‘herd knowledge’ for data linkage research?

In today’s online data-driven world, people constantly shed data and deposit digital footprints. When individuals access health services, governments and health providers collect and store large volumes of health information about people that can later be retrieved, linked and analysed for research purposes. This can lead to new discoveries in medicine and healthcare. In addition, when securely stored and de-identified, the privacy risks are minimal and manageable. In many jurisdictions, ethics committees routinely waive the requirement for researchers to obtain consent from data subjects before using and linking these datasets in an effort to balance respect for individuals with research efficiency. In this paper, I explore the ethical justification for using routinely collected health data for research without consent. I conclude that, not only is this morally justified but also that data subjects have a moral obligation to contribute their data to such research, which would obviate the need for ethics committees to consider consent waivers. In justifying this argument, I look to the duty of easy rescue, distributive justice and draw analogies with vaccination ethics.

Equality and Equity in Compensating Patient Engagement in Research: A Plea for Exceptionalism

Engaging citizens and patients in research has become a truism in many fields of health research. It is now seen as a laudable—if not compulsory—activity in research for yielding more impactful and meaningful citizen/patient outcomes and steering research in the right direction. Although this research approach is increasingly common and commendable, we recently encountered a major obstacle in obtaining an ethics certificate from an institutional review board (IRB) to conduct a study that places citizen/patient perspectives on equal footing with those of academic/policy experts. The obstacle was the interpretation of fairness in terms of compensation for research participation (i.e. honoraria). In terms of research ethics, this raised an important question: Should all types of participants be compensated equally, or should exceptions be made for citizen/patient participants? We argue that there are good reasons for exceptionalism and that clearer guidance on citizen/patient engagement in research should be embedded into research ethics doctrine.

Using wearable cameras to investigate health-related daily life experiences: A literature review of precautions and risks in empirical studies

Automated, wearable cameras can benefit health-related research by capturing accurate and objective information about individuals’ daily experiences. However, wearable cameras present unique privacy- and confidentiality-related risks due to the possibility of the images capturing identifying or sensitive information from participants and third parties. Although best practice guidelines for ethical research with wearable cameras have been published, limited information exists on the risks of studies using wearable cameras. The aim of this literature review was to survey risks related to using wearable cameras, and precautions taken to reduce those risks, as reported in empirical research. Forty-five publications, comprising 36 independent studies, were reviewed, and findings revealed that participants’ primary concerns with using wearable cameras included physical inconvenience and discomfort in certain situations (e.g. public settings). None of the studies reviewed reported any serious adverse events. Although it is possible that reported findings do not include all risks experienced by participants in research with wearable cameras, our findings suggest a low level of risk to participants. However, it is important that investigators adopt recommended precautions, which can promote autonomy and reduce risks, including participant discomfort.

Navigating conflict between research ethics and online platform terms and conditions: a reflective account

Internet users’ comments in online spaces have attracted researchers’ attention in recent years. Although this data is typically publicly available, its use requires careful consideration so as to not cause harm to the users, while complying with the terms and conditions (Ts & Cs) of the online spaces. However, the Ts & Cs and researchers’ ethical considerations may sometimes be in conflict. I faced such a conflict when I conducted discourse analysis of online discussions that were sourced from a public online learning platform owned by a private company. In this article, I reflect on how I navigated the Ts & Cs and copyright law, taking users’ likely expectations into consideration when deciding whether to seek informed consent and anonymize content. I employed an ‘attribution with anonymization’ method to acknowledge users for their comments while safeguarding their confidentiality. Given the variety of online spaces and research methods, ethical decision-making must be a contextualized process that requires researchers to consider the nature of the online platform and the potential experience of the users, rather than simply following guidelines or Ts & Cs.

A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication

The purpose of the traditional peer review process (TPR) is to provide a more constructive and scientifically rigorous critical review of scholarly research that builds scientific rigor and validity within diverse academic disciplines. Peer review has received criticism as the demand for publications in a variety of competitive journals has significantly increased while the number of individuals who are both willing and qualified to conduct thorough reviews is significantly declining. The purpose of this topic piece is to examine the overall efficacy of the peer review process and provide recommendations toward a more collaborative, transparent (i.e. “open”), and interdisciplinary communication process.

‘Grey areas’: ethical challenges posed by social media-enabled recruitment and online data collection in cross-border, social science research

Are social science, cross-border research projects, where recruitment and data collection are carried out remotely (e.g. through social media and online platforms), required to follow similar ethical and data-sharing procedures as ‘on-the-ground’ studies that use traditional means of recruitment and participant engagement? This article reflects on our experience of dealing with this question when we (multi-national but UK based researchers) had to switch to online data collection due to the restrictions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the inability to travel or work in person with local communities and collaborators. Using social media platforms and online data collection when conducting research brings many advantages, such as being able to communicate remotely but directly with gatekeepers and collaborators, and in reaching potential participants on a global scale. However, neither the guidelines and advice for conducting ethically sound internet-based research, nor the academic literature focussed on building equitable research partnerships between the Global North and the Global South, offer much information regarding the ethical concerns, or address the grey areas, posed by this type of digital and distanced transnational research. In our experience, conducting research remotely made negotiations of access very challenging due to the politics of positionality between Global North and South researchers, lack of clarity on ethical processes and (mis)perceptions of gatekeepers who we could not meet in person. We hope the reflections on, and discussion of, our experience encourage deliberation on the present ethical challenges posed by online and social-media-disseminated data collection, particularly in cross-border circumstances.

Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice

Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps: Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues. Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet. Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding. Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent. These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations.