WG 4 ETHICS OF OPEN SHARING Public Draft – Google Docs

“The working group welcomes your thoughts, comments and suggestions on this draft  of the position paper, which will remain open for consultation until the 24th of October. The paper will be presented alongside those of the three other working groups on 9 November, 2021, from 4:00 pm UTC to 5:30 pm UTC. 

Please ensure you are working in ‘suggesting’ (track changes) mode. We do not want to add significantly to the document length, but welcome better examples, sharper points and clearer phrasing. …”

PsyArXiv Preprints | When open data closes the door: Problematising a one size fits all approach to open data in journal submission guidelines

Abstract:  Opening data promises to improve research rigour and democratise knowledge production. But it also poses practical, theoretical, and ethical risks for qualitative research. Despite discussion about open data in qualitative social psychology predating the replication crisis, the nuances of this discussion have not been translated into current journal policies. Through a content analysis of 261 journals in the domain of social psychology, we establish the state of current journal policies for open data. We critically discuss how these expectations may not be adequate for establishing qualitative rigour, can introduce ethical challenges, and may place those who wish to use qualitative approaches at a disadvantage in peer review and publication processes. We assert that open data requirements should include clearer guidelines that reflect the nuance of data sharing in qualitative research, and move away from a universal ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to data sharing.

 

View of The UGC-CARE initiative: Indian academia’s quest for research and publishing integrity | First Monday

Abstract:  This paper discusses the reasons for emergence of predatory publications in India, engendered by mandates of higher educational institutions: that require stipulated number of research publications for employment and promotions. Predatory journals have eclipsed the merits of open access publishing, compromised ethical practices, and left the research community groping for benchmarks of research integrity and publication ethics. To fight back the menace of predatory publications, University Grants Commission, India has established “Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics” (UGC-CARE) in 2018 to promote and benchmark research integrity and publication ethics among the Indian academia. The present paper discusses the UGC-CARE initiative, its structure, objectives and specifically, “UGC-CARE Reference List of Quality Journals” (UGC-CARE list) and finally, the challenges it faces.

 

Recommendations for the handling of ethical concerns relating to the publication of research data | FORCE11

“The growth in data sharing over the last few years is an undeniably positive trend, providing the research community with ready access to valuable outputs and affording researchers further opportunities to extend the reach of their work. As more datasets are deposited and published, it is important — and necessary — to develop standards for the handling of possible ethical challenges that may arise in relation to published data: both to protect the researchers who contribute datasets and to secure trust by the scientific community in the value and reliability of public datasets.

While ethical standards have been developed for journal publications, this is a relatively new space for datasets and data publications. As the number of published datasets has increased, so has the amount and range of data-related ethics issues that data repositories and journals are encountering, and thus, the need for recommendations for a consistent and adequate handling of this type of cases has become more pressing. It is also important to recognize that while data repositories and journals may hold aligned integrity principles, the tools, processes and resources available at journals and data repositories differ. In the context of data publication, there may also be different research outputs that come into play (the dataset, the related journal article or preprint, perhaps different publications based on the same dataset). There is, therefore, a need to develop dedicated guidelines that account for these differences and nuances when handling ethical concerns related to a published dataset….”

The dawn of the age of duplicate peer review – The Scholarly Kitchen

“To sum up, the existence of a public version of a manuscript (i.e., the preprint) opens up many new avenues for peer review, and these are largely positive for the integrity of the scientific record. However, many of these peer review efforts run in parallel to peer review at the journal. As I hope I’ve illustrated above, there’s no clear way to decide what counts as legitimate discussion of a preprint and what is unethical duplicate peer review. As preprints become more prevalent we may need to abandon our hopes of enforcing sequential peer review entirely, and that may not be a bad thing.”

Making Strides in Research Reporting – The Official PLOS Blog

“PLOS keeps a watchful and enthusiastic eye on emerging research, and we update our policies as needed to address new challenges and opportunities that surface. In doing so, we work to advance our core mission and values aimed at transforming research communication and promoting Open Science. 

Here, I summarize a few key updates we made between 2016-2021….”

Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research* | Journal of Communication | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  Recent initiatives toward open science in communication have prompted vigorous debate. In this article, we draw on qualitative and interpretive research methods to expand the key priorities that the open science framework addresses, namely producing trustworthy and quality research. This article contributes to communication research by integrating qualitative methodological literature with open communication science research to identify five broader commitments for all communication research: validity, transparency, ethics, reflexivity, and collaboration. We identify key opportunities where qualitative and quantitative communication scholars can leverage the momentum of open science to critically reflect on and improve our knowledge production processes. We also examine competing values that incentivize dubious practices in communication research, and discuss several metascience initiatives to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field and value multiple ways of knowing.

 

CfP: GW Ethics in Publishing Conference 2021 (Oct 27, 2021). Deadline for presentation proposals/submissions: September 8, 2021

The 11th GW Ethics in Publishing conference will be held on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 as a virtual event.

The GW Ethics in Publishing conference is organized by the George Washington University Master of Professional Studies in Publishing program (http://cps.gwu.edu/publishing).

The theme of this year’s conference is Equitable Publishing.

We are soliciting conference presentations from (and for) publishing and library professionals, scholars, faculty, and publishing students. Topic ideas include, but are not limited to:
• Ways to enable and implement equitable, inclusive, and accessible publishing
• Efforts to make workplace practices equitable in publishing organizations, including internships and early-career positions
• Efforts to ensure diverse voices are part of the conversation about inclusion, equity, and accessibility
• Work to ensure peer review, authorship, editing, publications metrics, etc., are equitable and free of bias
• Work to make publications more accessible

Alumni and current students in the GW Publishing program are also invited to present on their Ethics in Publishing Capstone projects, including both “Making the World Better” projects and Case Studies..

Presentations will include panels as well as “PechaKucha” style, short talks.

The 11th Ethics in Publishing Conference co-organizers are Puja Telikicherla, Licensing & Subsidiary Rights Manager, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, and Adjunct Professor, George Washington University; and John W. Warren, Director and Association Professor, Master of Professional Studies in Publishing, George Washington University.

The Association of University Presses (AUPresses) and the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) are co-sponsors of the GW Ethics in Publishing Conference.

Deadline for presentation proposals/submissions: September 8, 2021.
We will endeavor to accommodate as many presentations as possible. Registration for the conference is free.

Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication | Journal of Communication | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  The open science (OS) movement has advocated for increased transparency in certain aspects of research. Communication is taking its first steps toward OS as some journals have adopted OS guidelines codified by another discipline. We find this pursuit troubling as OS prioritizes openness while insufficiently addressing essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Some recommended open science practices increase the potential for harm for marginalized participants, communities, and researchers. We elaborate how OS can serve a marginalizing force within academia and the research community, as it overlooks the needs of marginalized scholars and excludes some forms of scholarship. We challenge the current instantiation of OS and propose a divergent agenda for the future of Communication research centered on ethical, inclusive research practices.

 

Frontiers | The Ethic of Access: An AIDS Activist Won Public Access to Experimental Therapies, and This Must Now Extend to Psychedelics for Mental Illness | Psychiatry

“If patients with mental illnesses are to be treated fairly in comparison with other categories of patients, they must be given access to promising experimental therapies, including psychedelics. The right of early access to promising therapies was advanced as an ethical principle by activist Larry Kramer during the AIDS pandemic, and has now largely been adopted by the medical establishment. Patients are regularly granted access to experimental drugs for many illness categories, such as cancer and infectious diseases. The need for expanded access is especially relevant during evolving crises like the AIDS and the coronavirus pandemics. In contrast to non-psychiatric branches of medicine, psychiatry has failed to expedite access to promising drugs in the face of public health emergencies, psychological crises, the wishes of many patients, and the needs of the community. Psychiatry must catch up to the rest of medicine and allow the preferences of patients for access to guide policy and law regarding unapproved medications like psychedelics….

Open questions include how to amplify the voices of patients regarding experimental therapies like psychedelics, how to implement early access, how to educate the public about this option once it exists, and how to ensure equitable access for multiple marginalized groups. A model of political engagement like ACT UP may not work for patients whose symptoms include lack of motivation and will, and who are at risk for re-traumatization. The authors are exploring an entirely patient-led counterpart to traditional academic peer review, which allows diverse patient communities to provide meaningful input into therapies that result from trials….”

 

Bradley | Academic Librarians, Open Access, and the Ethics of Care | Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Abstract:  This paper explores the value of applying the ethics of care to scholarly communications work, particularly that of open-access (OA) librarians. The ethics of care is a feminist philosophical perspective that sees in the personal a new way to approach other facets of life, including the political and the professional. Care, in this context, is broadly construed as “a species of activity that includes everything we do to maintain, contain, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible” (Fisher & Tronto, 1990, p. 40). Joan Tronto outlined four elements of care: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness, and highlighted the value of care beyond the domestic sphere (1993). The ethics of care values care and relationships as instructive ways of framing and examining work, and has been applied in diverse disciplines, including education, nursing, social work, and even business. Several LIS professionals have considered the ethics of care in the context of library technologies (Henry, 2016) and digital humanities (Dohe, 2019), among others. The ethics of care can also provide inspiration for OA librarians as we think about the scope and nature of our work. What could open access librarians learn from the ethics of care? How might our practice change or evolve with the ethics of care as an underpinning philosophy? Who do we include in our circle of care while we undertake our work? The ethics of care provides a more expansive way to think about OA librarianship.

 

ROSiE – Responsible OS in Europe | EOSCSecretariat

ROSiE (“Responsible Open science in Europe”) is a just-starting, 3-year H2020-funded coordination support action to develop and openly share practical tools that ensure research ethics (RE), research integrity (RI) and legal compliance (LC) in open science (incl. citizen science).

Guest Post – Scaffolding a Shift to a Values-driven Open Books Ecosystem – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Pressure from all sides of the ecosystem has propelled growth, experimentation, and commitment to making more scholarship accessible to more people. There is increased awareness, too, that making research open does not resolve all issues of equity and access to knowledge, that more critical engagement with the moral economy of open access is still to come. Living in a pandemic has accelerated the momentum and heightened the sense of urgency, not only in discourse, but in concrete steps being taken and strategies developed by institutions and publishers alike. Libraries, scholars, students, and readers of all kinds have had to move rapidly to adopt and adapt digital resources and tools. Open access books offer increased access to knowledge for the reader, but they also present an opportunity to remake a fragmented ecosystem, and to increase channels of communication about the processes involved in researching, writing, shepherding, financing, publishing, acquiring, and reading research….

Digital books, open or not, require infrastructure. Disintermediating hosting, distribution, and sales helps simplify cost structures. Non-profit presses are developing their own infrastructure to support greater strategic choice. Fulcrum, from Michigan Publishing, and Manifold, from the University of Minnesota Press, are two such developments that expand the new universe of values-aligned platforms. The MIT Press Direct platform launched in 2019 in an effort to disintermediate the relationship between the press and libraries. The platform aligns ebook distribution with the university press mission and opens space for dialogue with libraries. The greater connection with libraries has confirmed a gap in knowledge sharing between librarians, editors, library sales, and authors that, when filled, could make the monograph publication process clearer. Each stakeholder, internal and external to a press, holds valuable information about open access book development, funding, hosting, and discovery. Creating channels to share this information, and doing so through new, collective models, has the potential to benefit the system as a whole….”

Open access publishing is the ethical choice | Wonkhe

“I had a stroke half a decade ago and found I couldn’t access the medical literature on my extremely rare vascular condition.

I’m a capable reader, but I couldn’t get past the paywalls – which seemed absurd, given most research is publicly funded. While I had, already, long been an open access advocate by that point, this strengthened my resolve.

The public is often underestimated. Keeping research locked behind paywalls under the assumption that most people won’t be interested in, or capable of, reading academic research is patronising….

While this moral quandary should not be passed to young researchers, there may be benefits to them in taking a firm stance. Early career researchers are less likely to have grants to pay for article processing charges to make their work open access compared to their senior colleagues. Early career researchers are also the ones who are inadvertently paying the extortionate subscription fees to publishers. According to data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the amount of money UK universities fork out each year to access paywalled content from Elsevier – the largest academic publisher in the world – could pay 1,028 academic researchers a salary of £45,000 per year.

We know for-profit publishers, such as Elsevier, hold all the cards with respect to those prestigious titles. What we need are systematic “read and publish” deals that allow people to publish where they want without having to find funding for open access….

The current outlook for prospective researchers to secure an academic position at a university is compromised because so much money is spent propping up for-profit, commercial publishers. Rather than focusing on career damage to those who can’t publish with an Elsevier title, we should focus on the opportunity cost in hundreds of lost careers in academia….”

Why they shared: recovering early arguments for sharing social scientific data | Science in Context | Cambridge Core

Abstract:  Most social scientists today think of data sharing as an ethical imperative essential to making social science more transparent, verifiable, and replicable. But what moved the architects of some of the U.S.’s first university-based social scientific research institutions, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR), and its spin-off, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), to share their data? Relying primarily on archived records, unpublished personal papers, and oral histories, I show that Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, Philip Converse, and others understood sharing data not as an ethical imperative intrinsic to social science but as a useful means to the diverse ends of financial stability, scholarly and institutional autonomy, and epistemological reproduction. I conclude that data sharing must be evaluated not only on the basis of the scientific ideals its supporters affirm, but also on the professional objectives it serves.