Negotiating Open Access: Ethical Positions and Perspectives: Library & Information Science Book Chapter | IGI Global

Abstract:  In this chapter, the authors interrogate the discursive terrain of the open access phenomenon to position the processual as well as the discourse communities that open access is inevitably enmeshed in. The essay explores the current climate of open access and investigates the ethical dilemmas that its subversive sibling of guerrilla open access foregrounds. Further, the essay also recommends a viable model that can be deployed by state players as an exemplar of academic socialism that is flexible, accommodative, and a true reflection of the open-access philosophy which also counters the development of otherwise illegal and ‘pirate’ models of open access.


Save the date: next IFLA ARL Webinar series re: Research Ethics in an Open Research Environment – IFLA

“Research ethics guide the production of scholarly inquiry the world over. While there are differences in research standards in different regions of the world, and different perspectives between different groups of people (see Australia’s NHMRC as one example), standards exist, and human subjects rules guide researchers in their work. As we increasingly move to a more open access research environment, there are considerations to tackle as we share research instrumentation, data, and published output.

Join us as we consider these issues with librarians who have already been involved in adapting practices to a new open access environment.”

Frontiers | The Academic, Societal and Animal Welfare Benefits of Open Science for Animal Science | Veterinary Science

Abstract:  Animal science researchers have the obligation to reduce, refine, and replace the usage of animals in research (3R principles). Adherence to these principles can be improved by transparently publishing research findings, data and protocols. Open Science (OS) can help to increase the transparency of many parts of the research process, and its implementation should thus be considered by animal science researchers as a valuable opportunity that can contribute to the adherence to these 3R-principles. With this article, we want to encourage animal science researchers to implement a diverse set of OS practices, such as Open Access publishing, preprinting, and the pre-registration of test protocols, in their workflows.


Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research?productive management programs – Kepes – – Journal of Organizational Behavior – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Questionable research practices (QRPs) among researchers have been a source of concern in many fields of study. QRPs are often used to enhance the probability of achieving statistical significance which affects the likelihood of a paper being published. Using a sample of researchers from 10 top research-productive management programs, we compared hypotheses tested in dissertations to those tested in journal articles derived from those dissertations to draw inferences concerning the extent of engagement in QRPs. Results indicated that QRPs related to changes in sample size and covariates were associated with unsupported dissertation hypotheses becoming supported in journal articles. Researchers also tended to exclude unsupported dissertation hypotheses from journal articles. Likewise, results suggested that many article hypotheses may have been created after the results were known (i.e., HARKed). Articles from prestigious journals contained a higher percentage of potentially HARKed hypotheses than those from less well-regarded journals. Finally, articles published in prestigious journals were associated with more QRP usage than less prestigious journals. QRPs increase in the percentage of supported hypotheses and result in effect sizes that likely overestimate population parameters. As such, results reported in articles published in our most prestigious journals may be less credible than previously believed.


Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how – PMC

Abstract:  The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with Patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

From the body of the paper: “According to some surveys, ?95% of patients and members of IRBs believe that patients should be informed of the results of the research study. Nevertheless, this is a fairly uncommon practice, and the usual situation is that after participating in a study, patients are not notified of the results.”

Digital Knowledge Sharing Workshop Keynote with Stephen Curley – YouTube

“The keynote event of the APS’s Library & Museum’s 4th annual Digital Knowledge Sharing workshop was hosted by the APS’s Center for Native American and Indigenous Research (CNAIR) and the Native American Scholars Initiative (NASI), supported by the Mellon Foundation.

This virtual keynote conversation event featured Stephen Curley, Director of Digital Archives for the National Native American Boarding Schools Healing Coalition, in conversation with Brian Carpenter, Curator of Indigenous Materials at the APS’s Library & Museum. The conversation covered topics such as processes for Tribal and non-Tribal archives to reach out to each other to foster ethical stewardship and curation of Indigenous archival materials, current efforts in the digital curation of Native American boarding school resources, the centrality of honoring and acknowledging relationships versus academic tendencies of individualistic work, and a look back and look forward at developments in the archives field surrounding ethical best practices in culturally responsive care and curation of Indigenous archival collections.”

Sharing is caring: Ethical implications of transparent research in psychology. – PsycNET

Abstract:  The call for greater openness in research data is quickly growing in many scientific fields. Psychology as a field, however, still falls short in this regard. Research is vulnerable to human error, inaccurate interpretation, and reporting of study results, and decisions during the research process being biased toward favorable results. Despite the obligation to share data for verification and the importance of this practice for protecting against human error, many psychologists do not fulfill their ethical responsibility of sharing their research data. This has implications for the accurate and ethical dissemination of specific research findings and the scientific development of the field more broadly. Open science practices provide promising approaches to address the ethical issues of inaccurate reporting and false-positive results in psychological research literature that hinder scientific growth and ultimately violate several relevant ethical principles and standards from the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Ethical Principles of Psychologists Code of Conduct (APA, 2017). Still, current incentive structures in the field for publishing and professional advancement appear to induce hesitancy in applying these practices. With each of these considerations in mind, recommendations on how psychologists can ethically proceed through open science practices and incentive restructuring—in particular, data management, data and code sharing, study preregistration, and registered reports—are provided.

The rise of citational justice: how scholars are making references fairer

“Studies in bibliometrics have revealed persistent biases in citation patterns — women and people of colour, for instance, garner citations at lower rates than men do. An increasing number of researchers are calling on academics to acknowledge the inequities in citational practices — and, by paying more heed to work from groups that are typically under-cited, take action to reduce them. Some are referring to this idea as ‘citational ethics’ or ‘citational justice’. Initiatives include computer code that helps academics to estimate the balances of gender and race in their papers’ reference lists, a push for ‘citation diversity statements’ in research papers, and websites dedicated to highlighting papers from under-recognized groups. Journals, too, have started to take action, with some introducing guidance and tools for authors to highlight and address citational inequities in their own papers.”

Genomics’ Ethical Gray Areas Are Harming the Developing World

“Formal ethics reviews are also crucial for ensuring that low-resource countries can freely and independently access data that might benefit the health and wellbeing of their people. Even genetic data obtained for purposes unrelated to health may later prove beneficial for medical purposes. More than 1,000 samples of genetic data collected in the Uppsala study are now stored in the European Genome-Phenome Archive, where a Data Access Committee now has sole power to determine who can use it for future studies — although one condition must be that such research is in accordance with consent provided by study participants. (The archive’s website doesn’t specify the members of the Data Access Committee assigned to the Philippines data set, but it lists Larena as the contact person.) There is no guarantee that research institutions in the Philippines will ever be able to make use of the largest human genetic dataset ever collected on its own soil.”

Should Indian researchers pay to get their work published?

Abstract:  Paying to publish is an ethical issue. During 2010–14, Indian researchers have used 488 open access (OA) journals levying article processing charge (APC), ranging from US$ 7.5 to 5,000, to publish about 15,400 papers. Use of OA journals levying APC has increased from 242 journals and 2,557 papers in 2010 to 328 journals and 3,634 papers in 2014. We estimate that India is potentially spending about US$ 2.4 million annually on APCs paid to OA journals and the amount would be much more if we add APCs paid to make papers published in hybrid journals open access. It would be prudent for Indian authors to make their work freely available through interoperable repositories, a trend that is growing in Latin America and China, especially when funding is scarce. Scientists are ready to pay APC as long as institutions pay for it and funding agencies are not ready to insist that grants provided for research should not be used for paying APC.


Call for Papers GW Journal of Ethics in Publishing

“The George Washington University Master of Professional Studies in Publishing program  solicits papers for the GW Journal of Ethics in Publishing, a new, open access journal. The GW Journal of Ethics in Publishing (GWJEP) welcomes articles, case studies, and conference presentations from scholars, students, and publishing, library, and scholarly communication professionals on topics including, but not limited to, diversity and inclusion, accessibility, peer review, open access, sustainability, publishing metrics, equity, and other aspects and issues of ethics in publishing. This online journal is managed by students in the GW Publishing program and overseen by Editor-in-Chief Randy Townsend and an editorial board of publishing professionals….”

“A more ethical publishing infrastructure” – Open Voices interview with Stephen Eglen | The HardiBlog: Blog for the NUI Galway Library

For this Open Voices interview, we talk to Stephen J. Eglen, Professor of Computational Neuroscience at Cambridge University.

Connecting Sustainable Development, Publishing Ethics, and the North-South Divide – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The divide between the North and the South in scholarly publishing is often discussed and studied. We have also made some progress in reducing this gap, for example, in accessing research (e.g., Research4Life brings many global publishers under one umbrella to support the Global South), in publishing research (e.g., open access (OA) journals offer article processing charge (APC) waivers and discounts to researchers of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)), and in reducing geographical inequity (e.g., by publishing regional OA journals). Although we don’t often talk about the North-South divide in publishing ethics, a recent study shows a large variation in the awareness of academic integrity at the universities in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Developing countries’ organized battles against predatory journals can also be seen on some rare occasions….”

Connecting Sustainable Development, Publishing Ethics, and the North-South Divide – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Recently, I was preparing a talk for a NISO Plus 2022’s (February 15-17, 2022) panel on ‘Working towards a more ethical information community’. I started asking myself, if sustainable development works towards a just and ethical society, how does it deal with the Global North-South divide in the ethics of scholarly publishing?… 

Under global programs, like Research4Life, institutions of my Least Developed Country (LDC), Bangladesh, are now accessing thousands of journals for free and researchers are enjoying the APC waivers offered by many journals. But, all this will change in 2026, when Bangladesh will graduate from the LDC list. Do we realize that a change in a country’s economic status does not necessarily correspond with a change in that country’s research system and investments in it? Have we thought of any ethical coping mechanism for the researchers and authors of countries in similar economic transitions?

We need to ask ourselves, as we work toward the SDGs, can we really have an ethical scholarly community without addressing such a dynamic North-South divide? More specifically, are we contextualizing enough the ethical considerations of the North for the South as we address this divide? …”