Integrity and ethics in research and scientific communication: issues for Nursing considerations

Cabral, Ivone Evangelista; Egry, Emiko Yoshikawa; Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida

doi:10.1590/s0080-623420150000500001

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, the increased likelihood of ‘bad apples’ and conflicts will require greater levels of research monitoring and supervision as well as greater levels of involvement from human resource departments, research ethics committees and research integrity offices if and when violations occur. In addition, promoting and enforcing authorship guidelines (Lissoni & Montobbio, 2015 ) and educating researchers on good authorship practices (Cabral et al, 2015 ; Fang et al, 2012 ) will require more resources. Furthermore, if affiliated authors operate in institutions and countries where different regulations with dissimilar definitions (e.g., of misconduct) apply, violations may prove to be more difficult to investigate and resolve (Desmond & Dierickx, 2021 ).…”

Section: Inap’s Impact On Known Ethical Issues Of Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

show abstract

Section: Inap’s Impact On Known Ethical Issues Of Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The obstacles to the introduction of evidence are heterogeneous and related to methodological and ethical issues, scientific rigor, capacity to carry out projects, funding difficulties, pertinence and utility in the face of needs and health policies, efficacy in communication and dissemination, and lack of a scientific culture oriented toward collaborative work to develop products that promote the insertion of results in the appropriate contexts. [1][2][3] There is consensus that advocating a scientific culture based on good practices implies the need to coordinate the principles of honesty, reliability, impartiality, independence, rigorous communication, diligence, and justice with production and communication in science, 3 but urgency in using the results for the common good can be noticed, breaking the relative social isolation that characterizes scientific undertakings. 4 Proliferation of research activities by both expert researchers and beginners who are at the graduate training level leads to consideration of two central aspects: 1) Do the study design and execution predict, in a timely and rigorous fashion, the benefits for clinical practice and their transfer to it?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Credibilidade Científica do Investigador e a Transferência do Conhecimento

Baixinho

Costa

2020

Esc. Anna Nery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health sciences in general, and nursing in particular, have witnessed a fruitful scientific and technological production movement, which undoubtedly has contributed to improving the care offered to the population at different prevention levels. 1 However, it takes time for the obtained gains, that is, for research results to be introduced in clinical practice, and authors advocate the emergence of a new paradigm that promotes the fast and safe use of these results in decision-making. 2 Knowledge transfer to clinical practice is not exactly a recent subject in public and academic discussion about the topic. In the past years, researchers have been faced with complex challenges, from study design to results application, that do not allow appropriation by praxis. The obstacles to the introduction of evidence are heterogeneous and related to methodological and ethical issues, scientific rigor, capacity to carry out projects, funding difficulties, pertinence and utility in the face of needs and health policies, efficacy in communication and dissemination, and lack of a scientific culture oriented toward collaborative work to develop products that promote the insertion of results in the appropriate contexts. [1][2][3] There is consensus that advocating a scientific culture based on good practices implies the need to coordinate the principles of honesty, reliability, impartiality, independence, rigorous communication, diligence, and justice with production and communication in science, 3 but urgency in using the results for the common good can be noticed, breaking the relative social isolation that characterizes scientific undertakings. 4

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, Fierz et al (2014) found that in studies of prospective graduate nurses, 4% to 17% admitted data falsification or fabrication. Researchers in Brazil also found that a recurring theme associated with ethical misconduct for nursing was fraud by forgery or fabrication of data, and that this is on the rise (Cabral et al, 2015). There is a danger that the dearth of research reproducibility in nursing may lead some unscrupulous investigators to take a risk because they think that there is little chance of them getting caught.…”

Section: Nursing and Research Misconductmentioning

confidence: 99%