Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 5.505
Filtrar
2.
Pap. psicol ; 41(3): 174-183, sept.-dic. 2020.
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-197404

RESUMO

Se introduce la noción de embrollo como instrumento crítico. Si por un lado sirve para la identificación de un estado confuso de las cosas, por otro invita a su clarificación y salida. Dos embrollos se identifican en la psicoterapia. El primero es el enigma de cómo diferentes psicoterapias tienen, sin embargo, una eficacia similar. Se aclara de acuerdo con tres niveles de análisis: ontológico (distinguiendo entidades naturales versus interactivas), antropológico (factores comunes de las psicoterapias) y psicológico (ciertos efectos sanadores inherentes a toda práctica curativa). El segundo es el problema de la demarcación entre ciencia y pseudociencia. Siendo importante, el problema de la demarcación encubre otros problemas todavía más importantes que tienen que ver con la concepción de ciencia al uso. Porque la demarcación es subsidiaria de una concepción positivista de ciencia, ella misma problemática cuando se aplica en clínica. Estos otros problemas se han identificado como mala ciencia, cientificismo e integracionismo. Aun cuando estos embrollos se han clarificado, la salida pasa por plantear la cuestión ontológica de base acerca de qué es un trastorno psicológico, sin asumir la concepción estándar como «avería» en mecanismos internos. Se elabora una idea de trastorno que tiene su base en los problemas de la vida


The notion of imbroglio is introduced as a critical instrument. If on the one hand it serves to identify a confused state of affairs, on the other it invites its clarification and a way out. Two imbroglios are identified in psychotherapy. The first is the puzzle of how different psychotherapies, surprisingly, have similar efficacy. This is clarified according to three levels of analysis: ontological (distinguishing natural versus interactive entities), anthropological (common factors of psychotherapies), and psychological (certain healing effects inherent in all healing practices). The second imbroglio is the problem of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Although important, the problem of demarcation conceals other even more important problems that have to do with the current conception of science. This is because the demarcation is subsidiary to a positivist conception of science, itself problematic when applied in the clinic. These other problems have been identified as bad science, scientism, and integrationism. Even when these imbroglios have been clarified, the way out is to pose the basic ontological question about what is a psychological disorder, without assuming the standard conception as a «failure» in internal mechanisms. An idea of the disorder is raised that is based on life's problems


Assuntos
Humanos , Teoria Psicológica , Psicoterapia , Ciência , Prática Profissional , Bases de Conhecimento , Antropologia , Má Conduta Científica
3.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd ; 1642020 12 10.
Artigo em Holandês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33332059

RESUMO

The answer to the question whether COVID-19 is a hype or not depends on how we define a hype. The article loosely builds on philosophical discussions about hypes in knowledge work and information sciences. The central idea is to make clear that hypes always imply a certain overload of information and that the paradoxical outcome of this that it is not just information that is piling up but also disinformation. It is argued that it is in this sense (and only in this sense) that COVID-19 is a hype. How we respond to this hype depends very strongly on subjective sensitivities towards both information and desinformation.


Assuntos
Acesso à Informação/psicologia , Informática Médica/ética , Informática em Saúde Pública/ética , Má Conduta Científica , /epidemiologia , Defesa do Consumidor , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação , Saúde Pública , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Má Conduta Científica/psicologia
6.
Educ. med. (Ed. impr.) ; 21(5): 285-291, sept.-oct. 2020. graf, tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-196871

RESUMO

INTRODUCCIÓN: La deshonestidad académica son actitudes y acciones que toma el estudiante con la finalidad de obtener beneficio. Poco se conoce sobre el efecto de los profesores en este fenómeno. El objetivo de esta investigación fue conocer la percepción de los docentes sobre la prevalencia, motivación e implicaciones de la deshonestidad académica, así como analizar su rol en la incidencia de estas conductas. Métodos y materiales: Fue un estudio cuantitativo, descriptivo y transversal para el que se aplicó un cuestionario de 39 ítems que valora el modelo que explica la deshonestidad en los factores de prevalencia, motivación e implicaciones. Se analizaron las medias considerando como factores para la prueba ANOVA los años de experiencia y la etapa de la carrera en la que participa. RESULTADOS: Los profesores indican que las conductas más frecuentes son que el alumno obtenga crédito en trabajos en los que no participó, y plagio en actividades y tareas, con una media de 2,13 y 2,18, respectivamente. De los motivadores, los más implicados son la obtención de mayores calificaciones y las facilidades que ofrecen las nuevas tecnologías, con una media de 3,91 y 3,82, respectivamente. Sobre las implicaciones, aunque los profesores aseguran que alguna vez han sido testigos de la deshonestidad, solo un 48,2% ha abierto la conversación con los estudiantes durante su clase. DISCUSIÓN: Es necesario fortalecer las políticas institucionales que faciliten los métodos de reporte y seguimiento a situaciones de riesgo. En particular, un punto de interés es el de desvincular de los profesores la documentación de evidencia y la responsabilidad del proceso


INTRODUCTION: Academic dishonesty are attitudes and actions taken by the student in order to obtain benefits. Little is known about the effect of teachers on this phenomenon. The objective of this research was to study the perception of teachers about the prevalence, motivation and implications of academic dishonesty on students, as well as to analyze their role in the incidence of these behaviors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was quantitative, descriptive and cross-sectional. A questionnaire of 39 items that assesses the model that explains the dishonesty in the factors of prevalence, motivation and implications. The means were analyzed considering as factors for the ANOVA test: the years of experience and the stage of the career in which the faculty participates. RESULTS: The faculty members indicate that the most frequent behaviors are: the student that obtains credit for work where he / she did not participate, and plagiarism in activities and tasks, with an average of 2.13 and 2.18 respectively. Of the motivators, the most involved are: obtaining higher grades, and the easiness offered by new technologies, with an average of 3.91 and 3.82 respectively. On the implications, although the professors claim that they have witnessed dishonesty, only 48.2% have opened the conversation with the students during their class. DISCUSSION: It is necessary to strengthen the institutional policies that enable the methods of reporting and monitoring risk situations. Particularly, a point of interest is removing the responsibility of faculty about the documentation of evidence and the responsibility of the process itself


Assuntos
Humanos , Docentes , Percepção , Estudantes de Medicina/psicologia , Motivação , Má Conduta Profissional/ética , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Estudos Transversais , Inquéritos e Questionários , Análise de Variância , Plágio , Má Conduta Científica/psicologia , Avaliação Educacional , Má Conduta Profissional/psicologia
7.
J Law Med ; 27(4): 779-789, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32880397

RESUMO

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment highly conducive to substandard and fraudulent research. The incentives and temptations for the unethical are substantial. The articles published during 2020 in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that were based on spurious datasets, allegedly hosted by a cloud-based health care analytics platform, are deeply confronting for research integrity. They illustrate the perils of precipitate publication, inadequate peer-reviewing and co-authorship without proper assumption of responsibility. A period of crisis such as that in existence during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for high-quality research that is robustly evaluated. It is not a time for panic to propel premature publication or for relaxation in scholarly standards. Any other approach will replicate errors of the past and result in illusory research breakthroughs to global detriment.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Infecções por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Má Conduta Científica , Autoria , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Editoração
8.
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop ; 53: e20200475, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32965456

RESUMO

Two decades ago, Robert Proctor coined the term agnotology to refer to the study of ignorance that stems from scientific research. Amid the coronavirus disease pandemic, the world is witnessing the greatest natural experiment ever, and countries have adopted different response strategies. An evaluation of the effectiveness of different policies will play a valuable role in preparing for future public health emergencies. However, controversial issues such as the timing and pathways of viral emergence, the effectiveness of social distancing and lockdown strategies, and the use of antimalarial drugs as therapy have still not been fully resolved. This serves as a fertile breeding ground for agnotological strategies, whereby scientific studies are deliberately or unintentionally designed to create distractions or draw conclusions that are not supported by research findings. Researchers, public health authorities, and healthcare workers should be equipped to identify such agnotological strategies, distinguish them from scientific fraud, and avoid drawing misleading inferences based on an irrational adherence to hypotheses and a lack of criticism of implausible results.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Projetos de Pesquisa , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Pandemias , Má Conduta Científica
9.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0239121, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32998158

RESUMO

The first table in many articles reporting results of a randomized clinical trial compares baseline factors across arms. Results that appear inconsistent with chance trigger suspicion, and in one case, accusation and confirmation of data falsification. We confirm theoretically results of simulation analyses showing that inconsistency with chance is extremely difficult to prove in the absence of any information about correlations between baseline covariates. We offer a reasonable diagnostic to trigger further investigation.


Assuntos
Modelos Estatísticos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Má Conduta Científica/estatística & dados numéricos , Simulação por Computador , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas
14.
J Korean Med Sci ; 35(27): e256, 2020 Jul 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32657090

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. RESULTS: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). CONCLUSION: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Editoração , Má Conduta Científica , Mídias Sociais , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Revisão por Pares , Plágio , Pneumonia Viral , Inquéritos e Questionários
17.
Niger Postgrad Med J ; 27(3): 250-258, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32687128

RESUMO

Research misconduct policy (RMP) is a legal document that shows the definitions of the various types of misconduct, describes the inquiry and investigation of allegations, and the appropriate penalties that should be imposed. The presence of the adopted RMP on the website of a university or postgraduate college is an indication of the level of commitment to promote the proper handling of misconduct cases. Perusal of the websites of top universities in developing countries revealed that many do not have RMP on their websites. The probable starting point for combating research misconduct at the national or institutional level is by acquisition of RMP. The purpose of this article is to propose a modern, structured and cost-effective RMP for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. The bibliographic database, PubMed, was searched using the terms 'research misconduct' and 'research misconduct policy'. All relevant articles from the search and some RMPs of universities, national agencies and global health organisations available on the Internet were carefully studied. A formulated RMP, based on the Final Rule of the United States, Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct of 2005 and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of India of 2018, is hereby presented. In the proposed RMP, plagiarism was stratified into four levels in ascending order of severity so that imposed penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct. The zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core work areas was adopted. The proposed RMP was designed to act as a template. It should be modified as required based on the prevailing local circumstances and made fit for purpose. Universities, postgraduate colleges and journals should have RMP on the homepage of their websites.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Plágio , Editoração/ética , Pesquisadores/ética , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Academias e Institutos , Países em Desenvolvimento , Ética em Pesquisa , Humanos , Revisão por Pares/normas , Editoração/normas , Universidades
19.
J Pak Med Assoc ; 70(Suppl 3)(5): S166-S168, 2020 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32515402

RESUMO

The coronavirus disease-2019 outbreak has spread rapidly affecting 1.4 million people across the world in only four months. Healthcare fraternity is struggling to circumvent the consequences of this fast spreading infection and communicating their scientific discoveries through research publications. As a result, the scientific output on COVID-19 is growing rapidly and both the journal editors and authors are interested to publish results on scientific discoveries about it as soon as possible. However, novice and improperly trained authors are at high risk for getting duped by deceptive journals , which might keep their research unnoticed by the scientific and general community. This paper discusses these potential risks posed by deceptive (predatory) journals, for prospective authors and scientific community, during the COVID-19 outbreak. It also presents ways to address those risks and the role of journal editors and academic organisations.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pneumonia Viral , Editoração/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Má Conduta Científica
20.
Stud Health Technol Inform ; 270: 1203-1204, 2020 Jun 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32570580

RESUMO

One of the biggest challenges facing biomedical research today is the lack of reproducibility in findings. In response, a growing body of literature has emerged to address this. However, much of this focuses on bias and methods, while little addresses the issue of information quality. The purpose of this poster is to determine the role of information quality for retracted bioinformatics literature.


Assuntos
Biologia Computacional , Viés , Pesquisa Biomédica , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Má Conduta Científica
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA