Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. Pengarang

1. Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study David Shaw, Ph.D.a,b and Priya Satalkar, Ph.D.a aInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; bCare and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands ABSTRACT Despite increasing interest in integrity issues, relatively few studies have examined researchers’ own interpretations of integrity. As part of the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) project, we sought to explore how researchers themselves define research integrity. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clinical and laboratory-based researchers from across Switzerland. Data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and illustrative quotes were selected. Researchers defined integrity in terms of honesty, transparency, and objectivity, and generally stressed the importance of sticking to the research question and avoiding bias in data interpretation. Some saw research integrity as being synonymous with scientific integrity, but others regarded research integrity as being a subset of the wider domain of scientific integrity. A few participants equated research integrity with mere absence of misconduct, but the majority of participants regarded integrity as being more than this. Researchers regarded truth as the key aspect of integrity, though they expressed this in different ways and with various emphases on honesty, transparency, and objectivity. Integrity goes beyond avoiding misconduct, and scientific integrity has a wider domain than research integrity. KEYWORDS Research integrity; scientific integrity; ethics; clinical research; research misconduct; scientific misconduct 2. Attitudes toward text recycling in academic writing across disciplines Susanne Hall, Ph.D.a, Cary Moskovitz, Ph.D.b, and Michael A. Pemberton, Ph.D.c aHumanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA; bThompson Writing Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; cDepartment of Writing and Linguistics, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA ABSTRACT Text recycling, the reuse of material from one’s own previously published writing in a new text without attribution, is a common academic writing practice that is not yet well understood. While some studies of text recycling in academic writing have been published, no previous study has focused on scholars’ attitudes toward text recycling. This article presents results from a survey of over 300 journal editors and editorial board members from 86 top English-language journals in 16 different academic fields regarding text recycling in scholarly articles. Responses indicate that a large majority of academic gatekeepers believe text recycling is allowable in some circumstances; however, there is a lack of clear consensus about when text recycling is or is not appropriate. Opinions varied according to the source of the recycled material, its structural location and rhetorical purpose, and conditions of authorship conditions—as well as by the level of experience as a journal editor. Our study suggests the need for further research on text recycling utilizing focus groups and interviews. KEYWORDS Academic honesty; academic publishing; academic writing; research ethics; self-plagiarism; text reuse; writing in the disciplines 3. Person-oriented research ethics: integrating relational and everyday ethics in research M. Ariel Cascio, Ph.D.a,b and Eric Racine, Ph.D.a,b,c aNeuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM), Montréal, Québec, Canada; bNeurology and Neurosurgery and Division of Experimental Medicine (Biomedical Ethics Unit), McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; cDepartment of Medicine and Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ABSTRACT Research ethics is often understood by researchers primarily through the regulatory framework reflected in the research ethics review process. This regulatory understanding does not encompass the range of ethical considerations in research, notably those associated with the relational and everyday aspects of human subject research. In order to support researchers in their effort to adopt a broader lens, this article presents a “person-oriented research ethics” approach. Five practical guideposts of person-oriented research ethics are identified, as follows: (1) respect for holistic personhood; (2) acknowledgement of lived world; (3) individualization; (4) focus on researcher-participant relationships; and (5) empowerment in decision-making. These guideposts are defined and illustrated with respect to different aspects of the research process (e.g., research design, recruitment, data collection). The person-oriented research ethics approach provides a toolkit to individual researchers, research groups, and research institutions in both biomedical and social science research wishing to expand their commitment to ethics in research. KEYWORDS Human subjects ethics; informed consent; justice in research; public trust; research ethics; vulnerable populations