A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers.

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) in Clinical Genetics Research.

ELSI (Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues) is a widely used acronym in the bioethics literature that encompasses a broad range of research examining the various impacts of science and technology on society. In Canada, GE3LS (Genetics, Ethical, Economic, Environmental, Legal, Social issues) is the term used to describe ELSI studies in the context of genetics and genomics research. It is intentionally more expansive in that GE3LS explicitly brings economic and environmental issues under its purview. ELSI/GE3LS research is increasingly relevant in recent years as there has been a greater emphasis on "translational research" that moves genomic discoveries from the bench to the clinic. The purpose of this chapter is to outline a range of ELSI-related work that might be conducted as part of a large scale genetics or genomics research project, and to provide some practical insights on how a scientific research team might incorporate a strong and effective ELSI program within its broader research mandate. We begin by describing the historical context of ELSI research and the development of GE3LS research in the Canadian context. We then illustrate how some ELSI research might unfold by outlining a variety of GE3LS research questions or content domains and the methodologies that might be employed in studying them. We conclude with some practical suggestions about how to build an effective ELSI/GE3LS team and focus within a broader scientific research program.

Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest. OBJECTIVES: To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis). MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 advisory committee reports); opinion pieces, RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.91 to 7.55 (four studies of 284 opinion pieces); and narrative reviews, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.49 (four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis combining all four document types supported these findings (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.44). One study investigating specialty interests found that the association between including radiologist guideline authors and recommending routine breast cancer screening was RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 0.92 to 4.77 (12 clinical guidelines). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. However, we also stress risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest impact on recommendations.

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption.

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.

Do's and Don'ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner's Brief Decalogue.

Peer review has been the principal way of evaluating scientific articles, ensuring that publications meet standards of methodology, integrity, and ethics. Occasionally, however, reviews are suboptimal, especially those by inexperienced reviewers. Therefore, this article offers suggestions on how to review a scientific article. Some of the most important suggestions include submitting the review in a timely fashion without undue delay, not breeching confidentiality, focusing mainly on the methodology, following specific format, and avoiding embarrassing comments to the authors.

Scientists' political behaviors are not driven by individual-level government benefits.

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.

Publicity, politics, and professoriate in fin-de-siècle Vienna: The misconduct of the embryologist Samuel Leopold Schenk.

This essay uses the case of the fin-de-siècle Vienna embryologist Samuel Leopold Schenk to analyze the factors at play in allegations of misconduct. In 1898, Schenk published a book titled Theorie Schenk. Einfluss auf das Geschlechtsverhältnis (Schenk's theory. Influence on the sex ratio). The book argued that, by changing their diet, women trying to conceive could influence egg maturation and consequently select the sex of their offspring. This cross between a scientific monograph and a popular advice book received enormous publicity but also spurred first the Vienna Medical Association and then the Senate of the University of Vienna to accuse Schenk of poor science, self-advertisement, quack medical practice, and wrong publisher choice. Formal proceedings against Schenk ended in 1900 with the unusually harsh punishment of early retirement. Schenk died two years later. I examine the elements of the case, from the science of sex determination and selection, to the growth of print media and advertising within the changing demographic and political landscape of Vienna. I argue that the influence of the public, via the growing media, upon science was the main driver of the case against Schenk, but also that the case would have had a more limited impact were it not for the volatile political moment rife with anti-Semitism, nationalism, and xenophobia. I draw the attention to the importance of setting cases of misconduct in the broader political history and against the key social concerns of the moment.

Políticas de igualdad en el proceso editorial. Importancia de incluir el nombre de pila en las publicaciones científicas / Editorial Policies and Equality: The Importance of Publishing an Author's Given Name

No disponible