RESEARCH ETHICS FOR

SUPERVISORS

Sonja Bjelobaba, PhDSenior Lecturer at the Department of Modern Languages

Associated Researcher at the Centre at Research Ethics and Bioethics

Uppsala university

Source: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/65245?programid=2519

Source: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/65245?programid=2519

Main conclusions:

• Parents across the world didn’t want to vaccinate their children out of

fear of the risk of autism

• Measles outbreaks

• “The Wakefield fraud is likely to go down as one of the most serious

frauds in medical history.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/business/china-dna-uighurs-xinjiang.html

Chinese officials have gathered blood samples from hundreds of Uighurs without consent

Scientists are trying to find a way to use a DNA sample to create an image of a person’s face

The aim: mass surveillance and facial recognition systems

GROUP WORK:

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH

ETHICS IN YOUR DISCIPLINE

Research ethics

• Ethical conduct in research = following ethical and scientific standards and legal and institutional rules in the conduct of research

• The study of ethical conduct in research

Severalnames:

• Responsible conduct of research (RCR)

• Ethics in research

• Research integrity

• Scientific dishonesty

• Research misconduct

ETHICS

• acceptable unacceptable behavior

• personal ethics

• professional work ethics:• norms what good science is

• national and local rules

LAW

• although laws can be used to enforce ethical standards, it is not the same!• ethical behaviour that is illegal

• unethical behaviour that is legal

The intention

Misconduct: deliberately or by gross negligence

Carelessness = bad research, but not necessarily misconduct

• The research community and society as a whole have the right to be informed of the results of research: scientific knowledge is public knowledge; freedom of exchange

C – communalism

• Scientific work should be evaluated with reference to scientific criteria alone: science is independent of race, colour or creed – only strength of argument

U – universalism

• The researcher must have no other motive for his or her research than a desire to contribute new knowledge.

• Results should be honest and objective, not dependent on one’s views.

D – disinterestedness

• Free inquiry where everything is doubted. Constantly question and scrutinize, refrain from expressing an assessment until sufficient evidence.

OS – organized skepticism

ROBERT MERTON'S NORMS OF

GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (1942)

A good researcher

The discipline knowledge

The knowledge of

the methodology

The knowledge of the research norms and conditions

The knowledge of

the ethical and juridical aspects in research

• that one can be assured that research is of high quality

• that research is conducted and reported in a truthful way and with respect to important societal values

• that researchers take responsibility for their research and its consequences.

Fundamental principles ofgood research practice

Source: https://www.uu.se/en/research/ethics/

You shall tell the truth about your research.

You shall consciously review and report the basic premises of your studies.

You shall openly account for your methods and results.

You shall openly account for your commercial interests and other associations.

You shall not make unauthorised use of the research results of others.

You shall keep your research organised, for example through documentation and filing.

You shall strive to conduct your research without doing harm to people, animals or the environment.

Source: https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html

RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONAL

BEHAVIOUR IN RESEARCH MEANS

A RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS

RESEARCH SUBJECTS/OBJECTS

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESEARCH ON THE SOCIETY AT LARGE

THE RESEARCH SOCIETY / OTHER RESEARCHERS

DEVIATIONS FROM GOOD

RESEARCH PRACTICE

Plagiarism

“Plagiarism in research entails a

researcher using material (texts, ideas,

hypotheses, “designs”, methods,

data, results or conclusions) –

consciously or through carelessness –

in such a way that it presents a

misleading picture of the researcher’s

contribution to the project at hand.”

Source: Good Research Practice, 2017, 65https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-

research-practice.html

Self-plagiarism

Source: Cyanide and Happiness.http://explosm.net/comics/2264/

Duplicate / redundant / salami publication

• Publishing the same results or idea with just minor

differences without acknowledging the original or in what

way the new article differs

• Publishing in different languages without stating that and

cross-referencing / without copyright

• Gives recommendations for preventing salami-

publishing

the transparency is crucial

Duplicate / redundant / salami publication

Fabrication

To consciously present non-existent data

as if it existed to support your own claims

e.g. to find quotes, informants or data

Falsification

To consciously present a selection of

data that supports your own hypothesis

and / or

To withhold data that contradicts it

BUT: Wrong interpretation is not the same as misconduct.

Meeting the society

What can I say as a representative of

a scientific community?

Different roles?

Can my research be used to harm anyone?

Research that provokes hatred and threats:

animal experiments, gender science…

Conflicts of interest

Unethical peer-review

(double roles, stealing ideas, preventing,

waiting so that someone else can publish first)

Assessing applications and proposals

Companies

Other deviations from good

research practice

No ethics approval

No or inadequate informed consent

Misuse of the funding

Inappropriate Archiving

Authorship issues

What does it take to be a co-author?

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.19

1803

The paper is on 9 pages,

while the list of co-authors takes 24 pages:

5154 co-authors

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803

What is an author?

A classical sole author

“Contributor-ship”

Co-authorship

Co-authorship

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All authors should meet

all four criteria and

everyone meeting all

criteria should be

included as author.

To lead a research

group is not enough for

co-authorship!

Supervision: different

traditions in different

fields!

Source: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

“Only 3.8% of the journals directly listed

authorship definitions in the instructions for

authors section […] The current version of

the ICMJE authorship criteria was abided by

32.9% of the journals.”

John P. A. Ioannidis, Richard Klavans &

Kevin W. Boyack (2018): “Thousands of

scientists publish a paper every five days“

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8?code=c6004b62-a952-4148-9f89-f73d157f8939

PREDATORY PUBLISHING

Publish or perish

Bibliometric data steer the funding:

• Pressure for an individual researcher

• Pressure for a department

More journals, more conferences

Open access journals:

• Charge publishing fees

• Do not charge anything for access The content is available without subscription

APC (Author

Processing

Charge)

Open access journals

Basically a good and

effective model for science publications

But for predators: a way to get rich

Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado

Started investigating dubiousopen access journals in 2008

Made a list of such journals and publishers that are "potential, possible, or probable predatory”

A Nature article in 2013 public awareness

Legal threats by OMICS group the lists is offline

Predatory journals

Have a high

acceptance rate

Promise a speedy

peer review process

The aim is to publish as many

papers as possible

The scope of the problem

About 12 000 – 15 000 journals

•Shen, C., Björk, B. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 13, 230 (2015) doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

420 000 articles published in 2014

A huge number of predatory conferences

• Novice researchers, new

academics

• Developing world

BUT: 15% have an American

coresponding author!

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Cobey, K.D., Lalu, M.M.,

Galipeau, J., Avey, M.T.,…, & Ziai, H. (2017). Stop this

waste of people, animals and money. Nature, 549(7670),

23–25. Retrieved December 6, 2019,

from http://www.nature.com/news/stop-this-waste-of-

people-animals-and-money-1.22554.

Shaghaei, N., Wien, C., Holck, J.P., Thiesen, A.L., Ellegaard, O., Vlachos, E. and Drachen, T.M., 2018. Being a deliberate prey of a

predator: Researchers’ thoughts after having published in predatory journal. LIBER Quarterly, 28(1), pp.1–17.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10259

lack of awareness

the publication process that is quick and easy

chance to get published a work that was rejected elsewhere

OA has a larger readership

Reasons for 31 possible predatory publications by staff 2015-16

BUT…

• there may be journals not found in either whitelists or in

blacklists

• it might happen that a journal is incorrectly classified

• 72 journals and 42 publishers were included in

both a blacklist and a whitelist

• Criteria for the inclusion differ

First contact - typically by e-mail

Predatory Conferences

GROUP DISCUSSION:

HOW TO SPOT A PREDATOR?

• The publisher: many journals, same editors…

• Invitations: clueless, flattery e-mails; strange mail account, poor language

• Journal: not indexed, “leading” although just started, no-one heard of, false location (Varginia), no editorial office

• The title: “international”, “American”, mimics another

• The website: unprofessional, editorial board?, location, schedule, advertisements

• False impact figures: IF although new, too high, alternative IF

• Fees: a submission/handling fee, not clearly stated

• Peer-review: unrealistic (days/weeks)

• Ethics and copyright: no policies for misconduct, copyright, archive

• Quality of papers: poor, fundamental errors, outside the stated scope of the journal

HOW TO SPOT A PREDATOR?

More information:

https://thinkchecksubmit.org/

To report or not to report?

• We are required to report suspected misconduct

• Risks:

– Risk of being labeled as disloyal.

– Dependency can be an obstacle.

– Even the mere accusation provokes feelings of shame

and aversion: it is hard to be cleared what if we are

wrong?

• Accusing someone unjustifiably of misconduct for the

purpose of harm is punishable.

GROUP WORK: HOW CAN THE

MISCONDUCT BE PREVENTED?

How can the misconduct be

prevented?

• Clear rules for information, division of responsibilities, co-

authorship and collaboration.

• Good procedures for documenting and archiving

research material.

• Postgraduate education must contain ethics from various

aspects.

• Awareness of, and testing attitude towards the conditions

of the research community.

• An ongoing discussion on ethical issues.

GROUP WORK:

THE ROLE OF THE SUPERVISOR?

• Five different approaches to supervision

http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/492/

The role of the supervisor

• “Through discussions, teaching and

their own example, good supervisors

transfer knowledge, skills and

experience to their doctoral students,

and guide the research which they

are undertaking.”

Source: Good Research Practice, 2017, 59https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-

research-practice.html

The role of the supervisor

• Enculturating: school the PhD student in the academic

environment

• The supervisor is responsible for the ethical aspects of

the doctoral student’s project:

– explain the rules, ensure that the PhD student

becomes aware of the academic fairness and

academic integrity

– make sure that the doctoral student has all the

necessary permits for his research

IF YOU ARE NOT SURE: TALK TO YOUR COLLEAGUES!

PhD student

Know and understand the norms

Know his/her

responsibilities

Be aware of the

challenges

Develop strategies

for the stressful situations

DESIGNING A RESEARCH

PROJECT

Time and resources•Student’s

•The collaborators

Protecting the participants (human or

animal)

Permissions

• Ethical approval

• Data protection

• Informed consent

Conflicts of interests?

• Financial, personal, professional etc?

Methods

• Workplace safety

• Best method?

CONDUCTING THE RESEARCH

Research record

• Steps and decisions

• Evidence of approvals

• References

Research data

•Collection

•Avoid fabrication

•Storage

•Protection of individuals!

Data interpretation

• Avoid falsification

Collaboration

• Respect

• Completing on time

• Misconduct raise questions

PRESENTING AND

PUBLISHING THE RESEARCH

Responsible publishing

• Predatory journals

Co-authors• Give credit where it

is due

• Vancouver rules

Publications/Presentations: substantive, accurate, novel

• No salami publishing!

Avoid plagiarism

• Reference correctly

RESPONSIBILITIES

TOWARDS THE SOCIETY

Responsibility to the funding

agency

Contact with the society: sharing the knowledge

A SUPERVISOR IS IMPORTANT

IN ALL PARTS OF THE

PROCESS

QUESTION:HOW TO HANDLE A SITUATION

WHEN WE ARE NOT SURE WHOSE

IDEA SOMETHING WAS?

Whose idea was it?

• Whose idea was it?

– Supervisor’s idea in the PhD student’s thesis?

– PhD student’s idea stolen by a supervisor?

• But: ”Ideas that the supervisor suggests to the doctoral

student for further investigation, however, do not thereby

become the latter’s property. The supervisor, too, must

be able to continue to work on these ideas in his or her

own research without jeopardising the student’s research

work.” (Good Research Practice, 2017, 59)

QUESTION:

IS IT OK TO FORCE A STUDET

TO COMPLETE A THESIS ASAP? (IT IS GOOD FOR OUR CV:S AND THE DEPARTMENT)

Question: the relationship

Professional

Personal

Private

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2012/961505/

GROUP WORK:

DILEMMA GAME

1. Choose a dilemma:

https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interac

tief_2016.pdf

2. What woud you do? You can use as reference resources such as:

• Good Research Practice

https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-

good-research-practice.html

• Codex: http://www.codex.vr.se/en/index.shtml

3. Discuss with your colleagues!

TIPS

FILM:

• On Being a Scientist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCgZSjoxF7c

INTERACTIVE FILM:

• The Lab: https://ori.hhs.gov/thelab

• Nuremberg Code (1947)

• Helsinki declaration (1964): Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving

Human Subjects. https://www.slf.se/Lon--arbetsliv/Etikochansvar/Etik/WMA-

dokument/Helsingforsdeklarationen/

• Vancouver group (1978): Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing,

and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

• COPE: Principals of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

• ESF/ALLEA European Science Foundation/ALLEA (All European Academies)

(2011): The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg, March

2011. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-

ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf

• Good Research Practice https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-

reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html

• Codex: http://www.codex.vr.se/en/index.shtml

Guidelines and resources

sonja.bjelobaba@crb.uu.se

DĖKOJU!