Responding to research misconduct allegations brought against top university officials.

Investigating research misconduct allegations against top officials can create significant conflicts of interest (COIs) for universities that may require changes to existing oversight frameworks. One way of addressing some of these challenges is to develop policies and procedures that specifically address investigation of allegations of misconduct involving top university officials. Steps can also be taken now regardless of whether such a body is created. Federal and university research misconduct regulations and policies may need to be revised to provide institutions with clearer guidance on how to deal with misconduct allegations against top officials. For their part, institutions may benefit from proactively creating and transparently disclosing their own processes for independent investigation of research misconduct allegations against senior officials.

Developing faculty research mentors: Influence of experience with diverse mentees, gender, and mentorship training.

Effective mentoring is crucial for early-career researchers, and formal mentor training programs have demonstrated benefits for participating faculty. To determine how mentor training generalizes to different contexts and populations, we delivered mentor training and evaluated its impact on faculty's self-perceived mentoring skills. We also assessed whether mentor experience with diverse mentee populations or mentor gender influences mentors' self-perceived skills and if training interacted with these self-perceptions. We found mentors with more experience with diverse mentees were more likely to rate their mentoring skills higher than mentors with less experience across most areas assessed. Women rated themselves more highly than men at addressing diversity within the mentoring relationship. Mentors with less experience with diverse mentees gained the most training-related benefits in fostering independence skills. Training improved faculty self-perceived mentoring skills in all areas assessed. These results suggest while mentor training can benefit all involved, it can be especially useful for those newer to mentoring.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education.

With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender1 across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well.2 However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction.

Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study.

Non-establishment or do-it-yourself (DIY) science involves individuals who may not have formal training conducting experiments outside of institutional settings. While prior scholarship has examined the motivations and values of those involved in the subset of DIY science known as "DIY biology," little research has addressed how these individuals navigate ethical issues in practice. The present study therefore aimed to understand how DIY biologists identify, approach, and resolve one particular ethical issue-biosafety-in their work. We conducted a digital ethnography of Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), the primary hub for DIY biology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently conducted interviews with individuals involved with JOGL. We found that JOGL was the first global DIY biology initiative to create a Biosafety Advisory Board and develop formal biosafety guidelines that applied to different groups in multiple locations. There was disagreement, however, regarding whether the Board should have an advisory role or provide mandatory oversight. We found that JOGL practiced ethical gatekeeping of projects that fell outside the limits defined by the Board. Our findings show that the DIY biology community recognized biosafety issues and tried to build infrastructure to facilitate the safe conduct of research. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2.

Prevalence of factors contributing to unplanned hospital readmission of older medical patients when assessed by patients, their significant others and healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of factors contributing to readmission of older medical patients perceived by patients, significant others and healthcare professionals and to examine the agreement of factors contributing to readmission. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted at Horsens Regional Hospital from September 2020 to June 2021. Patients aged ≥ 65 years and who were readmitted within 30 days were included. The questionnaire covered eight themes: disease; diagnosing, treatment and care; network; organisation; communication; skills and knowledge; resources; and practical arrangements. Response groups were patients, significant others, GPs, district nurses and hospital physicians. Outcomes were the prevalence of factors contributing to 30-day readmission and inter-rater agreement between respondents. RESULTS: In total, 165 patients, 147 significant others, 115 GPs, 75 district nurses and 165 hospital physicians were included. The patients' median age was 79 years (IQR 74-85), and 44% were women. The following were the most prevalent contributing factors: (1) relapse of the condition that caused the index admission, (2) the patient could not manage the symptoms or illness, (3) worsening of other illnesses or conditions, (4) the patient was not fully treated at the time of discharge and (5) the patient's situation was too complex for the medical practice to handle. Kappas ranged from 0.0142 to 0.2421 for patient-significant other dyads and 0.0032 to 0.2459 for GP-hospital physician dyads. CONCLUSION: From the perspectives of the included respondents, factors associated with the disease and its management were the most prevalent contributors to readmission for older medical patients. Agreement on the contributing factors was generally low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial number NCT05116644. Registration date October 27, 2021.

Effects of a transitional care intervention on readmission among older medical inpatients: a quasi-experimental study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a transitional care intervention (TCI) on readmission among older medical inpatients. METHODS: This non-randomised quasi-experimental study was conducted at Horsens Regional Hospital in Denmark from 1 February 2017 to 31 December 2018. Inclusion criteria were patients ≥ 75 years old admitted for at least 48 h. First, patients were screened for eligibility. Then, the allocation to the intervention or control group was performed according to the municipality of residence. Patients living in three municipalities were offered the hospital-based intervention, and patients living in a fourth municipality were allocated to the control group. The intervention components were (1) discharge transportation with a home visit, (2) a post-discharge cross-sectorial video conference and (3) seven-day telephone consultation. The primary outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. Secondary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality and days alive and out of hospital (DAOH). RESULTS: The study included 1205 patients (intervention: n = 615; usual care: n = 590). In the intervention group, the median age was 84.3 years and 53.7% were females. In the control group, the median age was 84.9 years and 57.5% were females. The 30-day readmission rates were 20.8% in the intervention group and 20.2% in the control group. Adjusted relative risk was 1.00 (95% confidence interval: 0.80, 1.26; p = 0.99). No significant difference was found between the groups for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The TCI did not impact readmission, mortality or DAOH. Future research should conduct a pilot test, address intervention fidelity and consider real-world challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial number: NCT04796701. Registration date: 24 February 2021.

A best-worst scaling experiment to prioritize concern about ethical issues in citizen science reveals heterogeneity on people-level v. data-level issues.

"Citizen science" refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives. Citizen science gives rise to unique ethical issues that stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process. We sought to explore the ethical issues that are most concerning to citizen scientist practitioners, participants, and scholars to support ethical practices in citizen science. We developed a best-worst scaling experiment using a balanced incomplete block design and fielded it with respondents recruited through the U.S.-based Citizen Science Association. Respondents were shown repeated subsets of 11 ethical issues and identified the most and least concerning issues in each subset. Latent class analysis revealed two respondent classes. The "Power to the People" class was most concerned about power imbalance between project leaders and participants, exploitation of participants, and lack of diverse participation. The "Show Me the Data" class was most concerned about the quality of data generated by citizen science projects and failure of projects to share data and other research outputs.

Ethical considerations in the care of encephalopathic neonates treated with therapeutic hypothermia.

Engaging with ethical issues is central to the management of neonatal encephalopathy (NE). As treatment for these neonates evolves, new ethical issues will arise and many existing challenges will remain. We highlight three key ethical issues that arise in the care of neonates with NE treated with therapeutic hypothermia: facilitating shared decision making, understanding futility, and defining the boundaries between standard of care and research. Awareness of these issues will help clinicians counsel families in light of evolving treatments and outcomes.

Impact of transitional care interventions on hospital readmissions in older medical patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesise available evidence on the impact of transitional care interventions with both predischarge and postdischarge elements on readmission rates in older medical patients. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHOD: Inclusion criteria were: medical patients ≥65 years or mean age in study population of ≥75 years; interventions were transitional care interventions between hospital and home with both predischarge and postdischarge components; outcome was hospital readmissions. Studies were excluded if they: included other patient groups than medical patients, included patients with only one diagnosis or patients with only psychiatric disorders. PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science were searched from January 2008 to August 2019. Study selection at title level was undertaken by one author; the remaining selection process, data extraction and methodological quality assessment were undertaken by two authors independently. A narrative synthesis was performed, and effect sizes were estimated. RESULT: We identified 1951 records and included 11 studies: five randomised trials, four non-randomised controlled trials and two pre-post cohort studies. The 11 studies represent 15 different interventions and 29 outcome results measuring readmission rates within 7-182 days after discharge. Twenty-two of the 29 outcome results showed a drop in readmission rates in the intervention groups compared with the control groups. The most significant impact was seen when interventions were of high intensity, lasted at least 1 month and targeted patients at risk. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor. CONCLUSION: Transitional care interventions reduce readmission rates among older medical patients although the impact varies at different times of outcome assessment. High-quality studies examining the impact of interventions are needed, preferably complimented by a process evaluation to refine and improve future interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019121795.

Realizing Present and Future Promise of DIY Biology and Medicine through a Trust Architecture.

The speed and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the limits of current health systems and the potential promise of non-establishment research such as "DIY" research. We consider one example of how DIY research is responding to the pandemic, discuss the challenges faced by DIY research more generally, and suggest that a "trust architecture" should be developed now to contribute to successful future DIY efforts.

Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.

Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.