Rimas Norvaiša 30 June 2011

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ethical Justice Chapter Four: Criminology Research - Theory Testing and Publishing.
Advertisements

Australasian Study of Parliament Group 2013 Annual Conference Reflections on a Fourth Branch of Government by The Honourable Wayne Martin AC Chief Justice.
The Tri-council Framework On Responsible Conduct In Research A Panel Member And Researchers Perspective Marc F. Joanisse, Ph.D. U. Western Ontario Karen.
LIS403, The Role of Research Spring 2005 G. Benoit, Ph.D. Associate Professor Simmons College, GSLIS Spring 2005 G. Benoit, Ph.D. Associate Professor Simmons.
Ethical publishing by doing the right things Moderated by Mirjam Curno Presented by Thomas Babor and Joseph Amon.
 Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research.scholarly.
Duplicate Submission: Journal Roles and Responsibilities Diane M. Sullenberger Executive Editor, PNAS.
VLH tw1 Dealing with RESEARCH MISCONDUCT A state has laws for regulating the behaviour of its inhabitants in order to prevent undesired actions. In the.
Statistical Issues in Research Planning and Evaluation
Publication Issues GCP for clinical trials in India R.Raveendran Chief Editor Indian Journal of Pharmacology.
Responsible Conduct of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities Peer Review Responsible Conduct of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities.
How does the process work? Submissions in 2007 (n=13,043) Perspectives.
Introduction to Research
Software Engineering Code Of Ethics And Professional Practice
Introduction to Communication Research
Mgt2700: Theory continued Science, Scientific Method, and Truth and Truth.
Jukka-Pekka Suomela 2014 Ethics and quality in research and publishing.
Inferential Statistics
Section 2: Science as a Process
Research Ethics in Undergraduate Research Timothy Sparklin Administrator, Human and Animal Research Protections Office University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Scientific Misconduct. Scientific Misconduct Definition "Misconduct in Research" means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that.
An Educational Computer Based Training Program CBTCBT.
By Reaz Uddin, Ph. D. Dr. Panjwani Center for Molecular Medicine and Drug Research, International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences, University.
©Sideview Ethical research publication: who’s responsibility is it? Liz Wager PhD Publications Consultant, Sideview
How to Write a Critical Review of Research Articles
Main issues Effect-size ratio Development of protocols and improvement of designs Research workforce and stakeholders Reproducibility practices and reward.
Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice in Germany Prof. Ulrike Beisiegel Chair of the DFG Ombudsman DFG Ombudsman Germany Director of the Institute of Molecular.
Why editors need to be concerned about publication ethics Elizabeth Wager, PhD Chair, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Powers and Duties of Ombudsmen in the Aspect of Ethics Under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E By Professor Siracha Charoenpanij Secretary-General.
MUSC College of Graduate Studies Postdoctoral Retreat on the Responsible Conduct of Research “Misconduct & Whistleblower Protection” Ed Krug
Journal Impact Factors: What Are They & How Can They Be Used? Pamela Sherwill, MLS, AHIP April 27, 2004.
Systematic reviews to support public policy: An overview Jeff Valentine University of Louisville AfrEA – NONIE – 3ie Cairo.
Don’t cry because it is all over, smile because it happened.
Research in Dental Hygiene 14. Dental Public Health & Research: Contemporary Practice for the Dental Hygienist, 3/e Christine Nielsen Nathe Copyright.
Scholarly Publication: Responsibilities for Authors and Reviewers Jean H. Shin, Ph.D. Director, Minority Affairs Program American Sociological Association.
Nursing Research as the Basis of Nursing. Importance of Nursing Research Nurses ask questions aimed at gaining new knowledge to improve pt. care Nurses.
Introduction to Earth Science Section 2 Section 2: Science as a Process Preview Key Ideas Behavior of Natural Systems Scientific Methods Scientific Measurements.
Tuskegee Study Research Ethics Ethics matters in academic and scientific research. Study of ethics is no less and no more important in research than.
Original Research Publication Moderator: Dr. Sai Kumar. P Members: 1.Dr.Sembulingam 2. Dr. Mathangi. D.C 3. Dr. Maruthi. K.N. 4. Dr. Priscilla Johnson.
Publication and Research Misconduct Stephanie Harriman Deputy Medical Editor.
The Scientific Method. Objectives Explain how science is different from other forms of human endeavor. Identify the steps that make up scientific methods.
The Scientific Method: Terminology Operational definitions are used to clarify precisely what is meant by each variable Participants or subjects are the.
Sam Bruton Office of Research Integrity 4/9/14. Research Misconduct (narrow sense): Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FF&P) Research Misconduct.
The Finnish Guidelines on Responsible Conduct of Research Markku Helin.
Approach to Research Papers Pardis Esmaeili, B.S. Valcour Lab Mentoring Toolbox Valcour Lab Mentoring Toolbox2015.
October 1st 2015Lars Bjørnshauge. Good Publishing Practice – Open Access journals how the Directory of Open Access Journals contributes! Presentation.
Introduction to Research. Purpose of Research Evidence-based practice Validate clinical practice through scientific inquiry Scientific rational must exist.
Ethical Conduct of Research for New Faculty, Post-Docs and Graduate Students Brief Overview.
Chapter 1 Section 2 Review
Challenges in Promoting RCR: Reflections from a Public Funder´s Perspective Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research [Canadian Institutes of Health.
They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing
Publication Pattern of CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinician Hsin Chen 1 *, Yee-Shuan Lee 2 and Yuh-Shan Ho 1# 1 School of Public Health, Taipei Medical University.
Competition Policy and Economic Growth: Evidence from Latin America Esteban Greco Diego Petrecolla Carlos A. Romero.
Research Integrity and Policies for Handling Misconduct Alan L. Goldin, M.D./Ph.D.
MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF BANDS
MUSC College of Graduate Studies
Chapter 6 Publishing research results
Professional Standards
Results and recommendations of the CRPD Committee’s examination of the UK 9 November 2017 Rachel Fox – Senior Associate, Treaty Monitoring 01.
Public Perceptions of Scientists: Questionable Research Practices
Strengths and weaknesses of current policies and practices
World Conference on Research Integrity
Educating Competent, Responsible, and Successful Researchers
Adapted from On Being a Scientist, 3rd Ed.
Legal Aspects of Investigations & International Cooperation
DFG Ombudsman Germany Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice Recommendation of the Germany Research Foundation Prof. Ulrike Beisiegel Chair of the DFG Ombudsman.
Essential elements in developing high quality recommendations based on individual appeals: structure and reasoning of the recommendations Jurgita Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė.
Ethics in scholar publishing: The journal editor's role
OECD Global Science Forum February, 2007
Presentation transcript:

Rimas Norvaiša 30 June

 In many cases bibliometric indicators are used to measure a scientific performance – this is the main tool of scientometrics.  The problem arises when such indicators are used for policy decisions – allocation of research resources, salary decisions, award nomination etc.  We argue that such science policy distorts the tool of scientometrics and creates an initiative to break Ethics of scientific work.

 The commonly accepted terminology:  Responsible conduct of research (RCR)  Questionable research practices (QRP) – actions that violate traditional values and commonly acceptable research practice such as improper authorship, dual submission, salami slicing, redundant publication, improper authorship, sloppy or careless research, misrepresentation of research in publications, statistical errors etc.  Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP)

 RCR (ideal)  --- QRP ---  FFP (worst)  It is commonly assumed that the worst behaviors FFP are not acceptable but rare.  It is also assumed that QRP is troubling but not serious enough to warrant government action.  Recent research on research behavior shows that this description is far from being adequate (N.H.Steneck, 2006). At least in USA where such research has more than 30 years long history.

 What impact on the reliability of research may have FFP and QRP?  Plagiarism essentially has no such impact.  Fabrication and falsification can have significant impact while difficult to assess.  Estimated level of occurrence of FFP is ~1%, while occurrence of QRP is between 10%-60% (more details in N.H.Steneck, 2006)  QRP is more prevalent and may have a stronger impact than FFP.

 B.K.Sovacool (2008) suggests 3 possible types of explanations of research misconduct.  (1) Individual impurity: misconduct is rare phenomenon caused by a few unethical researchers.  Solution: self regulation of science by scientists (teach and discuss).

 (2) Institutional failure: misconduct is an institutional problem caused by some research organizations that inadvertently foster it.  Solution: institutional reform such as protection for whistle-blowing or harsher penalties for misconduct.

 (3) Structural crisis: misconduct reflects a deeper phenomenon concerning the values that modern science itself promotes. Misconduct will be inevitable as long as science continue to prioritize publication, exploitation and competition over discovery, full recognition and cooperation.  Solution: Improve transparency within science and recognize the tension between publication and discovery, competition and cooperation.

 An increasing use of bibliometric indicators such us number of publications and the impact factor of the journals they appeared in pressures scientists into continuously producing “publishable” results, and this may conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research (D.Fanelli, 2010, to be discussed).  We consider such culture as an integral part of structural crisis from the previous slide.  What arguments and evidence we have for these statements to be true?

 “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor” D.T.Campbell (1976, p. 58).  If so, under the influence of the “publish and perish” culture one may expect distortion in presenting research results and inflation of bibliometric indicators.

 Andersen et al. (2007) study in USA based on discussions with scientists showed that competition contributes to  strategic game-playing in science,  a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods,  interference with peer-review processes,  deformation of relationships, and  careless or questionable research conduct.

 Statistical analysis carried by D. Fanelli (2010) showed that pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias.  The study is based on the fact that papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis).  Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments.

 A random sample of papers (1316) published between 2000 and 2007 that had an author in the US was analyzed (logistic regression).  These papers declare to have tested a hypothesis, and it was determined whether they concluded to have found a “positive” or a “negative” support for the tested hypothesis.  The proportion of a “positive” results was then compared with (regressed against) the number of articles published per-capita in each US state.

 In Lithuania only plagiarism is officially recognized as existing kind of misbehavior.  The term “academic ethics” is mainly related to higher education rather than to science research (the order of minister No ISAK-2485 “on recommendations…”).  There is no statistical research on research (mis)behavior in this country.  The institution of Ombudsman of academic ethics is expected to be established by the end of this year.

 Law on higher education and research (2009) Article 18. Supervisor of academic ethics and procedures  1. Supervisor of academic ethics and procedures shall be a state officer who examines complains and initiates investigation regarding the violation of academic ethics and procedures.  The first task of the ombudsmen: to foster institutions [sic] to comply with Ethics …  Is this task realistic if “structural crisis” holds?

 D.Fanelli (2010) and other studies suggest that “structural crisis” and “publish or perish” culture may be among causes of misconduct.  There is no reason to discard a possibility that the same causes may have the same effects in Lithuania.  The burden to prove the converse lies on those who believe that serious misconduct in Lithuania is rare and therefore not a major concern.

 with free access in the internet.  N.H.Steneck (2006).Fostering Integrity in Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12,  B.K.Sovacool (2008).Exploring Scientific Misconduct. Bioethical Inquiry, 5,  D.Fanelli (2010). Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? PLoS ONE 5(4).  Anderson et al (2007). The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships. Sci. Eng. Ethics 13,