Reducing Ethical Hazards in Knowledge Production

Abstract

This article discusses the ethics of knowledge production (KP) from a cultural point of view, in contrast with the more usual emphasis on the ethical issues facing individuals involved in KP. Here, the emphasis is on the cultural environment within which individuals, groups and institutions perform KP. A principal purpose is to suggest ways in which reliable scientific knowledge could be produced more efficiently. The distinction between ethical hazard and (un)ethical behaviour is noted. Ethical hazards cannot be eliminated but they can be reduced if the cultural ambience is suitable. The main suggestions for reducing ethical hazards in KP relate to the review process. It is argued that some defects of the current, largely anonymous, review process could be ameliorated by a process of comprehensive, open and ongoing review (COOR). This includes partial professionalisation of the work of reviewing. Review at several stages is a vital part of the long filtering that incorporates some claims into the canon of reliable knowledge. The review process would be an acknowledged and explicit part of KP--a respected, public and rewarded activity. COOR would be expensive but cost-effective. The costs should be built explicitly into research culture. Finally, the considerations about a more 'KP friendly' culture lead to advocacy of a 'long-term, short-term' synthesis; that is, of the synthesis of long-term vision, such as a more cooperative and less competitive culture, with incremental changes which may be implemented in the short term.

Evidens, estetikk og etikk

“…To many engaged seriously in KP [knowledge production], this sense of beauty is strong and durable. But even this has its ethical hazard, since it is possible to be seduced by beauty, become blinkered and not see important hazards such as the risk that one's output may be misused.» (Cottey, 2016).…”

Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige

“…Another approach is to empower research players and leaders to foster dialogue about ethics in research and in the work environment (5), as well as in the publishing industry, so that any bias related to superficial factors can be avoided or at least reduced. In the same way that providing firm instructions in research integrity should be an obligation, not an option (2), instructions for reducing ethical hazards in knowledge production (1) and in publishing integrity should also be issued and respected. A print-online hybrid publishing system in which print and online publication formats can co-exist could also be considered to reduce rejection biases in traditional print journals that argue ‘space limitations’ so that they can accept and publish more worthwhile articles in online formats only when the quotas for print versions are filled (9).…”