Join in our conversation! While you can comment on any of our articles without registering, create an account now to be able to connect with other members, discuss new topics in our forums, and to get regular email alerts with the latest news.Members Login
By Robert Dingwall | Published: January 25, 2017
The rush to publish a revised Common Rule for federally funded human research in the United States has created a flawed regulatory regime, says Robert Dingwall., Time to tear the whole edifice down and start over, he suggests.
Prone to Pressure: How Stakeholders Endanger the Independence of Evaluations and What We Can Do Against it
By Lyn Pleger and Fritz Sager | Published: October 25, 2016
It's self-evident that the independence of any evaluation, and the integrity of its findings, is paramount. Yet there's a a clear threat to the integrity of many evaluations: pressure from the stakeholders who hired the evaluator.
By Paul Smaldino | Published: October 4, 2016
A culture of bad science can evolve as a result of institutional incentives that prioritize simple quantitative metrics as measures of success, argues Paul Smaldino. But, he adds, not all is lost as new initiatives such as open data and replication are making a positive difference.
By Robert Dingwall | Published: December 17, 2015
Revisions to the U.S. government's regulations on ethical treatment of human research subjects that would exempt some experiments from direct oversight by institutional review boards are facing pushback from paternalistic guardians, says our Robert Dingwall, who don't seem to believe subjects are competent to make decisions on their own.
By Robert Dingwall | Published: November 5, 2015
The Federal Register is surely not everybody’s bedtime reading. It is where the US Government formally publishes certain official documents, including advance notice of its intention to make rules that implement Executive policies. For social science researchers, one of the most important of these has long been the so-called Common Rule, introduced in 1981 and […]
By Social Science Space | Published: September 8, 2015
Four years in the making, a proposed version of the federal 'Common Rule' for research on human subjects includes a full suite of social and behavioral science-influenced directives that past versions of the rule lacked.
By J. Wesley Boyd | Published: July 15, 2015
The US tortured prisoners in the 'War on Terror.' That that a major health care association colluded in this, argues J. Wesley Boyd, is unconscionable.
By Gigi Foster | Published: March 19, 2015
Imagine an ethics review system where the researcher’s proposal is read by an 'ethics jury' of four to six researchers drawn, as in legal juries, from the academic population at large, suggests Australia's Gigi Foster.
By Gigi Foster | Published: March 3, 2015
Writing about her experiences in Australia, Gigi Foster wonders if ethics boards are more interested in ticking the necessary boxes and not upholding the standards that supposedly underlie the boards' existence.
By Ritesh G. Menezes, Smith Giri, Sadip Pant, Magdy A. Kharoshah, Mohammed Madadin and Burugina Nagaraja | Published: February 5, 2015
High-quality scientific literature is the cornerstone of scientific progress and is highly regarded by academia. However, Ritesh G. Menezes and his colleagues write in the Medico-Legal Journal, scientific literature is often marred by plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship.
By Mark Israel | Published: November 7, 2014
Looking specifically at Australia, the author of the book on research integrity wonders how rampant plagiarizing and fabricating may be among researchers.
By Mark Israel | Published: November 4, 2014
The author of a book on research ethics for social scientists suggests that issues such as antagonism with university review boards and new complexities introduced by Big Data can make integrity a sometime elusive quality.