Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 202
Filtrar
1.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0239283, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32946521

RESUMEN

Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking. This study's purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data. This study systematically analyzed 32 open data studies (published between 2004 and 2019 inclusively) and elicited drivers plus inhibitors for both open research data sharing and use in eleven categories total that are: 'the researcher's background', 'requirements and formal obligations', 'personal drivers and intrinsic motivations', 'facilitating conditions', 'trust', 'expected performance', 'social influence and affiliation', 'effort', 'the researcher's experience and skills', 'legislation and regulation', and 'data characteristics.' This study extensively discusses these categories, along with argues how such categories and factors are connected using a thematic analysis. Also, this study discusses several opportunities for altogether applying, extending, using, and testing theories in open research data studies. With such discussions, an overview of identified categories and factors can be further applied to examine both researchers' drivers and inhibitors in different research disciplines, such as those with low rates of data sharing and use versus disciplines with high rates of data sharing plus use. What's more, this study serves as a first vital step towards developing effective incentives for both open data sharing and use behavior.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , Ética en Investigación , Investigadores/ética , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Difusión de la Información/ética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Publicaciones/ética , Confianza
3.
PLoS One ; 15(5): e0230961, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32374737

RESUMEN

Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.


Asunto(s)
Conducta/ética , Financiación Gubernamental , Personal de Laboratorio/ética , Política , Política Ambiental/economía , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Financiación Gubernamental/ética , Financiación Gubernamental/normas , Programas de Gobierno/economía , Programas de Gobierno/ética , Programas de Gobierno/normas , Política de Salud/economía , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Personal de Laboratorio/economía , Personal de Laboratorio/psicología , Mala Conducta Profesional/ética , Política Pública , Sector Público/ética , Publicaciones/economía , Publicaciones/ética , Publicaciones/legislación & jurisprudencia , Publicaciones/normas , Ciencia/economía , Ciencia/ética , Confianza , Estados Unidos
15.
BMJ Open ; 8(11): e021282, 2018 11 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30478105

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Corresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism). RESULTS: 4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics. CONCLUSIONS: We found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Bioética/educación , Publicaciones/ética , Adulto , Concienciación , Investigación Biomédica/ética , Conflicto de Intereses , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Publicaciones/normas , Mala Conducta Científica/ética , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
16.
PLoS Biol ; 16(11): e2006930, 2018 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30457984

RESUMEN

Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/economía , Investigación Biomédica/ética , Acceso a la Información/ética , Conflicto de Intereses/economía , Revelación/ética , Revelación/normas , Humanos , Difusión de la Información/ética , Difusión de la Información/métodos , Publicaciones/ética , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados
17.
Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes ; 25(5): 335-340, 2018 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30095478

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since research ethics dilemmas frequently fall outside the purview of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), we present three unique recent research ethics cases in thyroidology that demonstrate research ethics dilemmas. RECENT FINDINGS: The cases presented raise questions surrounding epistemic/scientific integrity, publication ethics, and professional, and personal integrity. SUMMARY: Research ethics dilemmas that fall outside the purview of the IRB are appropriate for a Research Ethics Consultation, a common service in many large academic medical centers.


Asunto(s)
Endocrinología/ética , Ética en Investigación , Enfermedades de la Tiroides , Centros Médicos Académicos/ética , Endocrinología/normas , Comités de Ética en Investigación , Consultoría Ética , Ética Profesional , Humanos , Mala Conducta Profesional/ética , Publicaciones/ética , Enfermedades de la Tiroides/etiología , Enfermedades de la Tiroides/terapia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...