Dataset Information

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

ABSTRACT: The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, focus groups, and interviews, was distributed in November 2010 to U.S. faculty from 50 graduate programs for each of four different disciplines: microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. The survey addressed practices and perceived standards, as well as perceptions about teaching and learning. Over 1,300 responses (response rate of 21 %) yielded statistically significant differences in responses to nearly all questions. However the magnitude of these differences was typically small, leaving little reason to argue for community consensus on standards. For nearly all questions asked, the clear finding was that there was nothing approaching consensus. These results may be useful not so much to teach what the standards are, but to increase student awareness of the diversity of those standards in reported practice.

SUBMITTER: Kalichman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4057364 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

Kalichman Michael M Sweet Monica M Plemmons Dena D

Science and engineering ethics 20131213 4

The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, foc ...[more]

PMID: 24337932

Similar Datasets

Project description:Reproducibility in animal research is alarmingly low, and a lack of scientific rigor has been proposed as a major cause. Systematic reviews found low reporting rates of measures against risks of bias (e.g., randomization, blinding), and a correlation between low reporting rates and overstated treatment effects. Reporting rates of measures against bias are thus used as a proxy measure for scientific rigor, and reporting guidelines (e.g., ARRIVE) have become a major weapon in the fight against risks of bias in animal research. Surprisingly, animal scientists have never been asked about their use of measures against risks of bias and how they report these in publications. Whether poor reporting reflects poor use of such measures, and whether reporting guidelines may effectively reduce risks of bias has therefore remained elusive. To address these questions, we asked in vivo researchers about their use and reporting of measures against risks of bias and examined how self-reports relate to reporting rates obtained through systematic reviews. An online survey was sent out to all registered in vivo researchers in Switzerland (N = 1891) and was complemented by personal interviews with five representative in vivo researchers to facilitate interpretation of the survey results. Return rate was 28% (N = 530), of which 302 participants (16%) returned fully completed questionnaires that were used for further analysis. According to the researchers' self-report, they use measures against risks of bias to a much greater extent than suggested by reporting rates obtained through systematic reviews. However, the researchers' self-reports are likely biased to some extent. Thus, although they claimed to be reporting measures against risks of bias at much lower rates than they claimed to be using these measures, the self-reported reporting rates were considerably higher than reporting rates found by systematic reviews. Furthermore, participants performed rather poorly when asked to choose effective over ineffective measures against six different biases. Our results further indicate that knowledge of the ARRIVE guidelines had a positive effect on scientific rigor. However, the ARRIVE guidelines were known by less than half of the participants (43.7%); and among those whose latest paper was published in a journal that had endorsed the ARRIVE guidelines, more than half (51%) had never heard of these guidelines. Our results suggest that whereas reporting rates may underestimate the true use of measures against risks of bias, self-reports may overestimate it. To a large extent, this discrepancy can be explained by the researchers' ignorance and lack of knowledge of risks of bias and measures to prevent them. Our analysis thus adds significant new evidence to the assessment of research integrity in animal research. Our findings further question the confidence that the authorities have in scientific rigor, which is taken for granted in the harm-benefit analyses on which approval of animal experiments is based. Furthermore, they suggest that better education on scientific integrity and good research practice is needed. However, they also question reliance on reporting rates as indicators of scientific rigor and highlight a need for more reliable predictors.

Project description:Endometriosis is one of the most common benign gynecological diseases. The extremely heterogeneous complex of symptoms complicates the diagnosis and treatment of this disease. In most patients, there is a latency period of several years between the first occurrence of symptoms and the definitive diagnosis. This paper aims (1) to evaluate standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with (symptoms suspicious for) endometriosis in terms of feasibility, and (2) to assess the potential use of data collected by a certified clinical and scientific endometriosis center to answer scientific questions. Standards for outpatient consultations were developed for a special endometriosis outpatient clinic. Between January 2014 and December 2017, a total of 1715 outpatients with a suspicion of endometriosis presented to this special endometriosis outpatient clinic; the diagnosis and treatment of patients was carried out in accordance with the developed standards. Data of this patient cohort obtained from patient records created during outpatient consultations and from a questionnaire recorded in an Oracle-based database was analyzed. The patient cohort was also compared with another patient cohort who had attended different outpatient clinics and had been diagnosed intraoperatively with endometriosis. 41.8% of patients examined during special outpatient consultations had surgery for suspicion or recurrence of endometriosis. Endometriosis was confirmed in 81.5% of cases. Pain symptoms were the main indication for surgery in 70.1% of cases compared to 45.1% of cases in the comparison group. The structured approach used in the special endometriosis outpatient clinic is a key aspect of the care provided by the certified clinical and scientific endometriosis center. It ensures that patients are diagnosed and treated in accordance with guideline recommendations, that diagnosis and treatment comply with certification requirements, and that the collected data can be used to answer scientific questions.

Project description:BackgroundAssessing the safety of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is an interdisciplinary and complex process producing huge amounts of information and data. To make such data and metadata reusable for researchers, manufacturers, and regulatory authorities, there is an urgent need to record and provide this information in a structured, harmonized, and digitized way.ResultsThis study aimed to identify appropriate description standards and quality criteria for the special use in nanosafety. There are many existing standards and guidelines designed for collecting data and metadata, ranging from regulatory guidelines to specific databases. Most of them are incomplete or not specifically designed for ENM research. However, by merging the content of several existing standards and guidelines, a basic catalogue of descriptive information and quality criteria was generated. In an iterative process, our interdisciplinary team identified deficits and added missing information into a comprehensive schema. Subsequently, this overview was externally evaluated by a panel of experts during a workshop. This whole process resulted in a minimum information table (MIT), specifying necessary minimum information to be provided along with experimental results on effects of ENMs in the biological context in a flexible and modular manner. The MIT is divided into six modules: general information, material information, biological model information, exposure information, endpoint read out information and analysis and statistics. These modules are further partitioned into module subdivisions serving to include more detailed information. A comparison with existing ontologies, which also aim to electronically collect data and metadata on nanosafety studies, showed that the newly developed MIT exhibits a higher level of detail compared to those existing schemas, making it more usable to prevent gaps in the communication of information.ConclusionImplementing the requirements of the MIT into e.g., electronic lab notebooks (ELNs) would make the collection of all necessary data and metadata a daily routine and thereby would improve the reproducibility and reusability of experiments. Furthermore, this approach is particularly beneficial regarding the rapidly expanding developments and applications of novel non-animal alternative testing methods.

Dataset Information

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

Publications

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure