Research Ethics Testi2023
-
D3. Ethical Issues with Research Publications and Communication
-
Ethical Issues with Research Publications and Communication
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
Responsible Conduct of Research
Authorship, publishing and dissemination
Communicate about scientific activities honestly and openly irrespective of the publication format or channelExpert and review tasks
Carry out scientific expert and review tasks transparently, justifiably and confidentially and in compliance with the regulations on disqualification laid down in the Administrative Procedure Act. Respect the rights of authors and applicants in expert and review tasks, for example in relation to ideas, research data or interpretations.Activities that violate RCR
Disregard related to demonstrating the relevance of scientific work or one’s own scholarly achievements
Misleading the research community, funding organisations or the general public related to one’s own research
Exaggerating or modifying one’s scholarly achievements or merits, for example in a CV or its translations, list of publications or similar
Disregard related to benefiting from scholarly status
- Breach of confidentiality in the peer review process
This learning material explores the following questions- What is the role of peer review?
- What are the challenges with the current format of peer review?
- What about the alternative of open peer review process?
- How to choose a journal?
- What are the ethical issues in science communication?
Lecture - Research Publications
Part 1
Part 2
Responsible Communication
Science communication is an essential component of conducting research and good scientific practice. This is strongly stressed in the recommendations "Bold communication, responsible influence" by the Committee of Public Information in Finland. The recommendations continue: "Science and research are subject to demands for transparency and impact, which require science communication to be closely integrated into the execution of professional research."
Thus, researcher’s professionalism demands behaviour that is responsible in terms of research integrity throughout the entire research, also when communicating that research outside the academic community. The RCR guidelines draw attention to the following as disregard for the responsible conduct of research : "Misleading the research community, funding organisations or the general public related to one’s own research."
Disregard for the responsible conduct of research also include "exaggerating or modifying one’s scholarly achievements or merits, for example in a CV or its translations, list of publications or similar The most serious examples of such practices may meet the criteria for violation of RCR guidelines.
TENK is informed of all investigations of misconduct under the RCR guidelines in Finland. On occasion, TENK may also address communication outside the scientific community. The work of researchers has been questioned, among other things, in connection with press releases, online debates and regarding consultation as an expert before a committee.
Responsible Research sites reminds researchers that every time they speak with the voice and the prestige of a researcher, they are acting as a member of the scientific community, which in Finland has undertaken to conduct research responsibly. The same rules regarding conducting scientific research that guide research work also govern press releases and textbooks as well as marketing on social media – don’t lie, steal or distort data. A researcher is still a researcher, even on social media.The changed environment of science communication creates new challenges, however:
Science communication recommendations emphasise the responsibility of the scientific community and scientific institutions for collectively defend researchers’ entitlement to freedom of expression and support them against hate speech and harassment. More information about the support in communication and dealing with social media (e.g. in harassment cases) you find in Flamma.In the intervening years, changes to the field of media and the strengthening of social media have increased the equality of the publication and availability of information. At the same time, audiences have diverged and begun to communicate in their own bubbles. The tone of societal debate has become harsher and the shared cul- ture of information exchange has been challenged. Inappropriate feedback, pressure and hate speech directed towards researchers appears to have become more widespread and intense. ("Bold communication, responsible influence")
D3.1. Case Study - Peer-Review and Confidentiality
D3.2. Case Study - Shared Peer-Review?
D3.3 Putting Social Advocacy Before the Data
Resources:
- Pressure to Publish - iThenticate white paper
- Nature.com: Global scientific output doubles every nine years
- STM Report - the value of scientific publishing industry
- Parolo et al (2015) - Attention Decay in Science
- iThenticate's white paper, Pressure to Publish: How Globalization and Technology are Increasing Misconduct in Scholarly Research
- Remler (2014) - Are 90% of academic papers really never cited? Reviewing the literature on academic citations
- Charlotte Haug (2015) - Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process
- Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (COPE)
- Nature Open Peer Review Experiment
- Background to Peer Review (Resources for Research Ethics Education)
- Open Science and Research Initiative
- Academy of Finland: Open Science
- Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. and Cronin, B. (2013), Bias in peer review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 64: 2–17.
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Budapest Open Access Initiative
- Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities
- Opening Science – The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing
- Open Science online resource
Journal metrics:
- CiteFactor - provides indexing of major international journals and proceedings
- RetractionWatch - Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
-