During the COVID-19 pandemic, the race to find an effective vaccine or treatment saw an ‘extraordinary number’ of clinical trials being conducted. While there were some key success stories, not all trials produced results that informed patient care. There was a significant amount of waste in clinical research during the pandemic which is said to have hampered an evidence-based response. Conducting trials which could have been predicted to fail to answer the research question (e.g. because they are not large enough (...) to provide a definitive result) is not only a waste of resources but also a breach of research participants’ trust and a violation of research ethics. The issues seen in COVID-19 clinical trials are symptomatic of a wider trial design crisis where many trials do not provide informative results. This paper examines the roles of key stakeholders in delivering ethical and informative trials and whether guidance published by ‘The Good Clinical Trials Collaborative’ could be used to align key stakeholder groups and enable a joined-up approach to improve clinical trial design. (shrink)

Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To (...) effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM. (shrink)

Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally (...) culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP. (shrink)

The objective of this research is to assess the impact of ethics on research productivity within laboratories of public universities. To achieve this objective, neural networks’ method is used to highlight impacting and impacted variable modalities. Findings show ethical variables having the greatest impact on research productivity are ethics supporting document and transparency, while the variables most impacted by ethics are publications and scientific projects. Finally, the originality of this work lies in the reconciliation of two dimensions that appear to (...) be irreconcilable a priori, namely, ethics which has a social connotation and productivity which has an economic connotation. It also resides in employing neural networks’ method, with is rarely used in social sciences. (shrink)

Institutions are increasingly employing algorithms to provide performance feedback to individuals by tracking productivity, conducting performance appraisals, and developing improvement plans, compared to traditional human managers. However, this shift has provoked considerable debate over the effectiveness and fairness of algorithmic feedback. This study investigates the effects of negative performance feedback (NPF) on the attitudes, cognition and behavior of medical researchers, comparing NPF from algorithms versus humans. Two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted with a total sample of 660 medical researchers (algorithm (...) group: N1 = 411; human group: N2 = 249). Study 1 analyzes the differences in scientific misconduct, moral disengagement, and algorithmic attitudes between the two sources of NPF. The findings reveal that NPF from algorithms shows higher levels of moral disengagement, scientific misconduct, and negative attitudes towards algorithms compared to NPF from humans. Study 2, grounded in trait activation theory, investigates how NPF from algorithms triggers individual’s egoism and algorithm aversion, potentially leading to moral disengagement and scientific misconduct. Results indicate that algorithm aversion triggers individuals’ egoism, and their interaction enhances moral disengagement, which in turn leads to increased scientific misconduct among researchers. This relationship is also moderated by algorithmic transparency. The study concludes that while algorithms can streamline performance evaluations, they pose significant risks to scientific misconduct of researchers if not properly designed. These findings extend our understanding of NPF by highlighting the emotional and cognitive challenges algorithms face in decision-making processes, while also underscoring the importance of balancing technological efficiency with moral considerations to promote a healthy research environment. Moreover, managerial implications include integrating human oversight in algorithmic NPF processes and enhancing transparency and fairness to mitigate negative impacts on medical researchers’ attitudes and behaviors. (shrink)

Scientific integrity is defined as the condition that occurs when individuals adhere to accepted standards, professional values, and practices of the relevant scientific community. This study aims to investigate the influential factors on the scientific integrity in scholarly publishing of researchers in Thailand. The questionnaire was delivered to a sample size of 398 top researchers who had high citations and h-index recorded in the Scopus database during the past 5 years, 316 responses were returned. The findings confirm that there are (...) five factors that affect scientific integrity in scholarly publishing: university/faculty requirements/policies, university support, aspects of publishing, publisher aspects, and researcher-related factors. It is evident that establishing a process and criteria for authorship agreement and verification, as well as dedicating offices or units within the university to address research integrity concerns and provide support to researchers, exhibit the highest factor loading values. The findings ensure that scientific integrity stands out as a top priority for researchers linked with prominent research universities in Thailand. To tackle this challenge, it is recommended for the universities to prioritize initiatives aimed at enhancing researchers’ ethical awareness and nurturing scientific integrity. (shrink)

Ethical research behaviour plays an essential role in ensuring the integrity of knowledge. Consequently, ethical transgressions during the research process negatively influence the knowledge produced, and have wider social consequences for various stakeholders in society. To honour the value and role of ethical research for individuals and society, researchers are required to display ethical judgement and ethically responsible research behaviour. Doctoral students, who are considered to be significant contributors to knowledge creation, can improve the quality of their research through their (...) ethical research behaviour. Owing to the implicit and explicit ethical practices and conflicts that can arise during the research process, the supervision process is an opportune moment for developing ethical research behaviour and ethical capabilities in doctoral students. This article focuses on developing ethical research behaviour in doctoral students, and offers pragmatic guidelines for ways in which this behaviour can be developed during the supervision process. (shrink)