Science topic

Ethical Review - Science topic

A formal process of examination of patient care or research proposals for conformity with ethical standards. The review is usually conducted by an organized clinical or research ethics committee (CLINICAL ETHICS COMMITTEES or RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES), sometimes by a subset of such a committee, an ad hoc group, or an individual ethicist (ETHICISTS).
Questions related to Ethical Review
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
9 answers
What, in your opinion, is a reliable, objective, professional and thus really contributing to the effective development of science reviewing of scientific papers, diploma theses, dissertations containing the results of scientific research, text proposals sent to the editorial office for publication as scientific publications, including scientific articles, scientific monographs, etc.?
The reviewing of scientific articles by scientists specialised in a particular field of knowledge, conducted in the editorial process, is essential for maintaining a high level of scientific publications and for the development of scientific journals. However, there are times when it can be problematic and cumbersome for scientists who work in narrow, specific specialisations, fields, scientific disciplines.
On the one hand, it is widely accepted that the evaluation of a scientific paper during the peer review process should take into account and usually does take into account at least a dozen factors concerning both substantive issues, research, reference to the literature, timeliness of research results, correctness of inference, editorial quality, effects on the development of science, etc. The assessment of a scientific work during peer review should be carried out objectively, independently, fairly, according to a high level of assessment standards. Therefore, editorial activity, proofreading, editorial correction, scientific reviews, etc. should be carried out according to the applicable standards in order to maintain a certain level of scientific quality of published scientific work.
On the other hand, on the discussion forum of this Research Gate portal, many questions arise regarding the issue of objectivity and fairness in reviewing scientific papers. Yes, the processes of reviewing scientific texts proposed for publication is a serious issue. The issue of the level of objectivity and independence of reviewing scientific papers can influence the direction of science in narrow specialisations and scientific disciplines. The significant variation in the standards of reviewing processes, editorial processes, etc. between different editors of journals and other types of scientific publications is an important factor in considering the issue of the level of objectivity and the problems that arise in this regard. In order for the editorial and reviewing process to be fully objective and independent, among other things, institutional affiliation should not influence the editors' decision to publish a scientific paper and the assessment in the review of the text, manuscript by the reviewers. Unfortunately, however, it sometimes happens that institutional affiliation is taken into account in such situations.
An important element of maintaining a certain level of objectivity in the reviewing process of scientific papers is the application of the model of more than one review in the editorial boards of scientific journals and editorial boards of book publications and monographs, i.e. the standard of min. Two reviews written independently by other researchers and scientists operating in a given discipline of knowledge and/or who are recognised experts in a given issue. Consequently, the multi-review model is important as it should contribute to the improvement of scientific texts. The double (two reviews) review process for scientific papers raises the issue of the objectivity of the review process and is an important element of the editorial process. In some editorial boards of scientific journals and editorial boards of book publications and monographs, the model of 3 reviews is also applied, in which the third review plays an auxiliary and sometimes a decisive role in relation to the previous two reviews written, in which significantly different assessments appeared, different points of view on the given issue described in the reviewed scientific work.
In addition, there are other factors that are important for researchers and scientists, such as the length of the review process of submitted text proposals for publication and the period after which they receive a response from the editorial office. Sometimes the review and editorial processes take a long time. This is determined by various factors. During the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, organising conferences in a traditional, desktop format and post-referral publication processes were difficult. An important issue is the communication standards in place in a given scientific publication editorial board. These standards can also vary widely, as some editorial offices write back with an e-mail response regarding the results of an evaluation, a review conducted, an editorial correction or feedback confirming receipt of a text, etc., within a period of several days or so after the text has been sent to the editorial office publishing a particular scientific text. However, there are also editors who write back with a response much later. For scientists and researchers, waiting a long time for a reply can be problematic in a situation where they are continuing their research in a particular field of knowledge, they are receiving new, new research results and the field or scientific discipline in which they are conducting research is developing rapidly.
The issues of the length of the review process, the process of editing a manuscript proposal submitted for publication, the issue of communication between the editorial office and the manuscript author may also be related to the acceptance by authors of journals that are not highly ranked in terms of recognition, reputation, Impact Factor, etc. If journals with a high Impact Factor are difficult to access due to the long review process and high publication costs, some researchers and scientists who want to publish their research results quickly publish in journals without Impact Factor. In addition, some journals without Impact Factor have other positive features, such as the inclusion of published articles in many scientific publication indexing databases and all this under the open access formula without any payment.
In the context of the issue at hand, the editorial requirements set by the editors of scientific journals for the preparation of articles and other texts for publication are also relevant. On the one hand, the standards of reviewing and editorial requirements sometimes vary widely between journals. On the other hand, meeting all editorial requirements in full may limit the issue of innovation in terms of the research conducted and its description and presentation in scientific publications. This is a complex issue that affects many scientific fields, the research conducted and the description of its results in specific types of scientific publications written according to the editorial standards of specific editors and scientific publishers.
Another issue of discussion in the context of the reviewing process of scientific texts is the progressive digitisation of documents. This process should encourage remote communication via e.g. email, and should assist in the editorial process concerning preparatory work prior to the publication of scientific texts. The issue of the progressive digitisation of documents and their increasingly automated digital processing is linked to the use of new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0, including artificial intelligence, e.g. technology similar to ChatGPT to improve computerised applications and Internet-connected anti-plagiarism platforms used to verify texts during the process of reviewing scientific texts. I wrote about this issue in one of the previously formulated questions on my discussion forum of this Research Gate portal.
Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on an honest approach to the discussion of scientific issues and not the ready-made answers generated in ChatGPT, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
What, in your opinion, consists in a reliable, objective, professional and thus really contributing to the effective development of science reviewing of scientific works, theses, dissertations containing the results of scientific research, text proposals sent to the editorial office for publication as scientific publications, including scientific articles, scientific monographs, etc.?
In your opinion, what is a reliable, objective, professional review of scientific papers, theses, etc.?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this subject?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me based on my research.
In writing this text, I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear researchers, scientists, friends, participants in the discussion forum of this Research Gate portal
In my opinion, the development of scientific cooperation, establishing contacts on scientific social networks, online discussion forums operating on online science portals, seeking researchers and scientists to conduct team scientific research, write scientific multi-author papers, participate in scientific conferences and symposia, team search for cooperation to exchange views, express one's own opinion on specific scientific topics, inspire each other to seek interesting topics of research papers, etc. not to generate bad emotions, to inspire bad words and actions, to look for what divides us, to provoke emotional quarrels, etc. This is my opinion, according to which I function in various areas of my activity, including my scientific, research activities and in this discussion forum of the Research Gate portal. It worries me, I am sorry to say, that on some discussion threads, within the framework of ongoing discussions, some participants in the discussion act as if they have a completely different opinion on the above issue. Of course, each of us may have a different opinion on various topics, but this is not a reason to insult others, inspire arguments, stir up bad emotions, use ineloquent vocabulary, use inappropriate epithets, accuse someone of doing what he does not do, behave in a way that is not befitting of educated people, provoke unethical behavior, and so on. I, on many occasions on various discussion threads, in discussions on various topics, when I noticed bad emotions, I noticed attempts to escalate bad emotions on the part of some participants in the discussion then, addressing the entire community of researchers and scientists, I asked for substantive discussions, not to generate bad emotions, not to provoke anger, I asked for respect for all participants in the discussion regardless of what cultures they represent, what backgrounds they come from, what scientific backgrounds they represent, and so on. Besides, I always address the entire community of researchers, scientists, participants in the discussion forum and not per persona, not directly to a specific person, because in my opinion, addressing per persona is inappropriate if we do not know each other in real life, have never met outside the Internet, etc. But this is also just my opinion. I am not trying to prove anything with these words, I am not urging anything, I am not suggesting anything, I am just expressing my opinion on a particular issue. If I ever offended anyone with any words, if anyone ever reading what I write felt offended, felt worse, then I apologize. Bad intentions have never been, are not and will not be the goal of my scientific or any other activity. I fully understand that it will never be the case that all people agree with each other on everything. The fact that there are different opinions on certain topics is also a source of interesting discussions and can inspire the development of new solutions, the development of new concepts, also new concepts of scientific research, the formulation of an innovative topic of scientific work. However, I believe that we should focus on what unites us, not what divides us. This is my opinion. There are many problems to be solved in which the development of science and the technological advances taking place can help. There are many global problems of the development of civilization that we as humanity can solve, that perhaps we will solve in the future. By attempting to solve them, we hope to solve at least some of the global problems of the development of civilization. We will certainly increase the likelihood and scale of solving problems if we cooperate and not look for reasons to develop negative emotions and insult each other and disrespect each other. Of course, if any of you, any of the participants in the discussion forum of the Research Gate portal think otherwise then I will also respect the other opinion and it will not be a reason for me to escalate bad emotions. It's just the way I am, that escalating bad emotions is not in my nature, I don't prefer it, I don't like it. I hope I will be respected that this is just the way I am. Once again, I will reiterate for the sake of full clarity, because perhaps my words were ever interpreted differently than I meant them when I wrote them. If anyone ever felt offended by my words then I apologize. It was not my intention to offend anyone. I try to respect every other opinion, I don't look for what divides us, I focus on what can connect us. And what can unite us is scientific cooperation in solving various more or less important problems, including the most important global problems of civilization development, which in the current 21st century are increasing and there are many indications that they may increase in the future, develop, increase their scale. For the sake of completeness, an example of such a global problem of civilization development is the global climate crisis, which we will not solve alone. But we can increase the scale of solving this problem, or at least reduce the level of action of the negative effects of the global climate crisis, when we act together on the basis of cooperation, mutual respect, willingness to look for what unites us and not what divides us. In view of the above, I invite you to scientific cooperation on various issues concerning the global climate crisis, the progressive process of global warming, the development of the negative effects of these processes and attempts to counteract them, the implementation of the goals of sustainable economic development, climate and environmental social responsibility, the green transformation of the economy, etc., as well as on other issues and topics in which we participate in various discussions, conduct scientific work, research and publish the results of our research in scientific publications.
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
For the sake of full clarity, so that I am not again suspected of being assisted by pseudo-intelligent agents, habots I declare that the above text is an expression of my personal opinion, it is fully my author's work, written by me on the basis of conducted research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
5 answers
According to the following points, describe your opinion:
  1. Economic Impact: Productivity
  2. Social Impact: Healthcare
  3. Ethical and Moral Considerations
  4. Legal and Governance Issues: Regulation
  5. Technological Advancements: Innovation
  6. Cybersecurity
  7. Environmental Impact: Sustainability
  8. Cultural and Creative Fields
  9. Global Dynamics: Geopolitics
  10. Digital Divide
Relevant answer
Despite the importance of artificial intelligence, especially in the field of the health sector and other magazines, the negatives outweigh the positives, especially in terms of ethics and the labor sector, as there are many fields in the labor sector that will disappear, leading to the spread of unemployment, and this affects the economic, social and political structure in the country. the society.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
8 answers
This topic has generated a lot discussion on the ethical implications of using language models like ChatGPT in academic settings. It drives us to consider potential biases, accuracy issues, and professionalism in academia while employing such technology. Furthermore, it encourages the investigation of alternate ways or complementary approaches that can improve academic success while resolving concerns about the incorporation of ChatGPT.
By considering the use of ChatGPT as a catalyst, and given the controversy surrounding their role, what are the potential benefits and drawbacks of introducing ChatGPT or similar language models into the academic product creation process? and does it assist the academic researcher in producing an efficient and engaging academic output, or does it cause the researcher to lose their ability to communicate ideas clearly and concisely and conveying arguments in a logical and convincing manner?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for your contribution Dr. 𝔸𝕝𝕖𝕩𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕣𝕦 𝕀𝕆𝔸ℕ , what worries me is that if addiction is created, it open the door for a new human need, from one point of view it is a development with the merits of (Economic Growth-Improved Quality of Life-Technological Advancement), from the other point of view it is (Consumer Manipulation-Overconsumption and Waste-Shifting Priorities-Dependency)!
ensuring that the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks and that ethical considerations are taken into account is crucial when creating a human need!
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
4 answers
I submitted a paper to Springer which was rejected, but the preprint was generated before editorial check.
After rejection, I submitted the same paper to Emerald which was accepted after critical modifications. I later received a message of Copyright Infringement from Emerald because the preprint of the rejected paper appears on Researchsquare.
Should preprint of rejected papers be a copyright infringement?
Relevant answer
Answer
It should be mentioned that whether this is copyright infringement depends on the legal system of Mr. Adeniran's country. not the country of the publisher's headquarters, which the author should not worry about.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
14 answers
Since many scientists do not like the current review process, which sometimes is biased.
Relevant answer
Answer
Will ChatGPT Disrupt Peer Review? Impact of AI on the Hallmark of Science Vigilance
ChatGPT is already starting to impact peer review in scholarly publishing. While there is a constant debate surrounding whether artificial intelligence (AI) is capable of fully replacing human peer reviewers or not, it is being used to assist with certain aspects of the peer review process. For example, some publishers are using AI tools to screen submissions for plagiarism or to identify potential conflicts of interest. Other publishers are using AI to help identify suitable reviewers based on their areas of expertise and past performance...
AI tools can assist with certain aspects of the review process, such as identifying potential conflicts of interest or language biases, but they cannot replace the expertise and judgment of human reviewers.
Human reviewers bring a level of subject matter expertise and critical thinking that cannot be replicated by AI tools. They can identify important scientific insights, evaluate the quality of the research methodology, and provide nuanced feedback that goes beyond what an algorithm can offer...
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
87 answers
This weekend, I decided to accept an invitation to review a paper by a new journal called Qeios. It is a journal without an editor, but I learnt that it is controlled by AI rather than traditional humans as journal editors/editorial assistants. It also supports Open Science and open review methods.
It appears that Qeios utilises AI to find out the best reviewers from databases across the world. This gets new people to review, and these people are always related to the topic, and are mostly experts! This is an example of AI being harnessed for good!
As an author, I have not published here but as a reviewer, it is my first review feedback that has been posted or reviews in #Qeios journal.
From my initial finding, these Qeios papers are basically preprints, which means that the authors can receive about 10 comments to improve the quality of the submission. That does not mean it will be accepted for final publication.
Although, the paper also gets a DOI, then it gets indexed on google scholar! You can find my first review for the journal online, at https://www.qeios.com/read/CLC992 for the paper's preprint which has DOI: https://doi.org/10.32388/CLC992
Their papers can be searched on Google and some scholars as well as academic experts have already endorsed #Qeios papers. What about you? Will you publish in it? Will you review for the journal?Does it look like it will overtake traditional journals? What are their advantages and disadvantages?
Relevant answer
Answer
Qeios functions as a scientific research publishing platform that differs from traditional academic journals, as it enables open peer review and collaboration among researchers. Manuscripts can be uploaded to the platform prior to undergoing peer-review and publication in an academic journal. Reviewers' identities are disclosed, and they can provide feedback and engage in discussions with the author and other reviewers. While Qeios offers benefits to researchers seeking open and collaborative feedback, there is no assurance that articles will be accepted or widely acknowledged by the academic community.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
12 answers
On August 18, 2022, a blog post by Clarivate indicated that Publons has been fused into Web of Science (WoS): "Publons™ has joined the Web of Science™"
Access to the Publons website now redirects to a WoS page, so that:
is now
Clarivate claims that all information (and supposedly data) has been integrated into WoS, but is that true if the public can no longer access the "publons.com" URL?
I have some questions for debate:
1) Will the Publons URL cease to exist?
2) Will WoS introduce paid services or paid access to access what was previously freely and publicly available information at Publons?
3) How will Clarivate reward reviewers?
4) Will the Publons brand be phased out, including things like the Publons Academy, Publons Peer Reviewer Award, etc?
Relevant answer
Answer
You are right to worry, what I initially read at the time as a “nothing will change for you and things will only improve” turns out to be vastly different. They (Clarivate) follow the same pattern as Elsevier’s Scopus. The free version is well, nothing but a cut-down-to-the-bone version of the paid version:
-Only the first 10 ten publications can be viewed (in some detail), same happened with Scopus (ID)
-Additional features like author impact beam plot (whatever that may be) are hidden behind a paywall (premium version), a bit like the SciVal service that is only available with a Scopus license
In other words, indeed as you said, “introduce paid services or paid access to access what was previously freely and publicly available information at Publons”. It is matter of wait and see for how long and to what extent the Publon peer review system (what was basically their main objective) will remain unaltered. I’m not optimistic, ultimately Clarivate (like Elsevier) is ‘just’ a company and is not out there for the greater good but to make some money.
Best regards.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
7 answers
I'm not entirely certain how this "Start a discussion" feature works, but I'll give it a shot anyways.
I can't be the only one experiencing a co-author paraphrasing all my work so that person can maintain complete control over the publishing process. Some have said this issue happens often at the graduate level but never at the undergraduate level. I'm a non-traditional 40-something year old student who has extensive experience with civil rights and so I'm particularly sensitive to people trying to pull a fast-one on me.
In this case, the professor glitched a few times which had me researching copyrights and IP laws a long time ago. However, I waited until after graduation to raise the issue because the university has a history of retaliation when people express concerns of possible civil rights violations. The corruption runs deep at this particular institution, which bases most of its decisions on their intentional lack of policies and procedures addressing fundamental rights such as free speech and intellectual property. In other words, they remain silent on key issues in order to have as much lateral discretion as possible when making critical decisions even when those decisions are inconsistent with both laws and ethics and could potentially ruin a student's entire academic career.
One of the biggest red flags I noticed early on was the professor neglected to go over the section in our textbook that addresses authorship order and publishing rights in the chapter titled "Research Ethics."
I think my mistake was taking for granted that I viewed this entire project as my own because it was based almost entirely on my research into safe consumption sites. The experimental design, methodologies, protocols, and procedures were created by myself during her class in "Research Methods" as graded assignments. It was, and always has been, my original ideas and content from the very beginning; it just never occurred to me that this professor could, or would, even try to scrub me out like this. I trusted this person and considered her a friend and mentor!
Looking back, I cannot remember even a single instance where we had this conversation despite it being a core principle of the American Psychology Association Code of Ethics. The professor is a licensed psychologist and my degree was in psychology so you'd think that would have been something we should have covered at least once. Right?
Has anyone else experienced issues similar to this? How did you handle it? What should I do, or have done, to prevent this from becoming an issue?
Relevant answer
I find the following important note on the Wikipedia:
"A study found that over half of the uploaded papers appear to infringe copyright because the authors uploaded the publisher's version."
To see this note, you can refer to the following link
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
1 answer
In the era of information and reasoning, we are shown several scientific pieces of information either in print form or online globally. Despite the appreciable access to information the originality, novelty, and quality of information are substandard. For example, a large number of researches done in the developing world are either published in reputable journals or on the shelf. However, implementation of these research findings is scarce.
This could be due to data quality or the quality and quantity of the research team involved. The Issues that could affect the quality of research in developing countries include but are not limited to;
· Availability of limited resources to support research projects
· Inadequate time devoted to research projects because people who teach at the university level in developing countries are rarely full-time professors and usually have several jobs.
· The theoretical nature of research methodology in the curriculum, so students become professionals without the practical knowledge of how to do research.
· Limited access to journals, search engines, and databases and high subscription cost that is beyond the reach of the budgets of both individual professionals and university libraries.
· Weak ethical review committee to verify ethical treatment of human subjects.
· Rationing research funds to several colleges and department, which lead to limited competition and an increased chance of doing weak research
· Weak institutional structure and lack of empowerment to research staff
· Poor data management systems and lack of databases
· Availability of poor research guidelines and poor composition of the research team (i.e. failure to involve all relevant expertise in developing proposals and conducting analysis and interpretation of findings)
In the face of the above challenges, using real-world health be a solution to data quality problems? If, what are possible changes using real-world health data in developing countries?
Relevant answer
Answer
Developing countries can make use of a lot of health research conducted in developed countries, for these researches are scientifically proven, while those of developing countries are of short data for the universities there do not pay enough to do excellent researches.Regards.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
20 answers
Despite the explicit indications in the "Instructions for Referees/Reviewers" provided by most scientific journals, it seems that rude unprofessional answers from anonymous reviewers are more common than we wish they were. Researchers recently reported that more than half of the authors submitting scientific manuscripts to international journals receive one or more unfair unprofessional reviews. Any Editor knows that unprofessional reviews should be dismissed and the reviewer should be warned about his/her misconduct. Some Editors may even remove the unprofessional reviewers from the list of experts from which they chose reviewers. However, we all know that recruiting reviewers (a voluntary time-consuming, and mostly unrewarded job) is increasingly hard, and Editors often need to invite many experts before one accepts to review, and so Editors seem to be more and more permissive and flexible with reviewers' reports. Within this context, my question is: How would you deal with expert reviewers that send unprofessional reviews? Is there any novel (or more effective than the usual) way to discourage reviewers from sending unfair reports without discouraging experts from accepting editorial invitations to review manuscripts?
These examples should give you a good idea of what unprofessional reviews can include (while reading them, please have in mind that the "authors" are colleagues with proven expertise in their fields):
“The first author is a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers.”
“The author’s last name sounds Spanish. I didn’t read the manuscript because I’m sure it is full of bad English.”
“Obviously, the authors have no idea what they are talking about”
“…. authors should not be doing science at all.”
“… I don´t care how many papers the authors have published, it is clear to me they are unfit to do good science”
““What the authors have done is an insult to science"
“You should look closely at a career outside of science.”
"[X] tried this in the 1990s and failed and he was more creative than you".
For more details, please read these articles:
Relevant answer
Answer
I have a 3-steps method I want to share, especially, with young scientists (it might be obvious to older colleagues). STEP 1) Whenever I receive unprofessional comments from a reviewer I mark them and carefully write down the reasons why I believe they are unprofessional (and not just plain negative critics of my work). This requires you to read/know what exactly is considered "unprofessional comment/behavior", and there is plenty of online material about that (see above, the introductory words for this Discussion). STEP 2) IF I am able to write one or more objective reasons supporting that one or more comments are indeed unprofessional, then I evaluate if that / those comments may cause rejection or not. STEP 3) IF I think they could cause the rejection of my manuscript, then I make sure the Editor knows about the unpro comments, my reasoning, and my suggestions about how to proceed (e.g., dismiss those comments or dismiss that reviewer and invite another, etc).
I don't know of one editor who would risk the costs of willingly supporting unprofessional reviews. However, sometimes Editors wouldn't notice the unprofessional comments embedded in a long review unless you call their attention to them. So, do not hesitate to let them know about any unpro comment you may receive (but do it politely).
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
4 answers
Many field-based qualitative studies are exploratory, where researchers build relationships with the study participants and their contexts to explore participants' lived experiences, meanings, and interpretations of social phenomena. To under field-based qualitative research, university ethical review boards demand that researchers answer questions in their research ethics applications. some of such questions require the researcher to know beforehand what will, can, or is likely to happen in the field. However, since researcher-participant relationships are negotiation and an ongoing process, shouldn't certain ethical requirements be an ongoing reflection, where the research responds to how they attend to emergent ethical issues.
Please, share your unique challenges and experiences about university ethical review boards during your field-based qualitative studies to help early-career researchers. Many of the issues around university ethical review processes are not taught in the classroom, so graduate students and early-career researchers are often frustrated when it comes to securing ethical approval for their field-based qualitative research.
Relevant answer
Answer
Here is a link to the American Anthropological Association's policy on Human Subjects Review:
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
4 answers
The algorithmic management of today comes in the form of AI-based solutions but it still is an algorithm with a binary system intact. What do you think of its usage and its novelty? How can we use AI-based evaluation to measure the efficiency of someone's work?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi @Valeria Demchenko
This is an interesting discussion !
I believe that artificial intelligence can make Taylor's vision more efficient in many ways and with new methods.
What do you think about the fuzzy attitude and rules of the Taylor Theory?
I suggest you think about this.
Good luck
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
4 answers
the technology development is growing up further day to day and mostly based on researches So, is this research development will be more beneficial or harmful to human future?
if we think little forward as AI and subset of it updating machines to next level may cause-effect of losing some human jobs or the technology will go further more to manage all human privacy for security reasons for governments secure sector.
think for moments this research you make the rate of benefit or harm on a human because the aim of science is to help humanity, not opposite it So, there should be some roles or something to develop to prevent it from harming human in future.
Share your opinion or idea or suggest some lab work for a project to do something as mentioned up.
Relevant answer
Answer
All scientific results can be beneficial or harmful depending on human ethics and morale levels of users. An example can be said about atom energy. AI is no exception.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
21 answers
Dear All,
Not so long time before we have received a review from a referee, asking us to introduce 17 (!!!) citations...yes, (nearly) ALL of them had a common co-author...we have have reported it to the Editor of the journal...and some weeks later, we have received another review for a new article, with 12 references, from the same author...and in a journal of the same publishing company (Elsevier).
How can we act against this kind of highly unethical approach? (we are sending a notification for the Editor...but... "come'n", these kind of people should be excluded from the reviewing procedures !!!, but also from publishing in highly rated journals...)
Any suggestion or similar experience?
Should we make it public his name? (but we can afraid if somehow he will receive another article from us...)
Thank you in advance!
Relevant answer
Answer
It is actually quite simple:
- Closely look if the referee's mentioned papers are significant to your peer-reviewed manuscript and should be indeed cited at appropriate positions.
- In case yes:
Include them and precisely explain to the editor why you have included them.
The tone of your reply should be entirely professional and neutral.
- In case no:
Precisely explain to the editor why you have to refuse to cite those papers and why they are insignificant or entirely irrelevant to your work.
Again, the tone of your reply should be entirely professional and neutral.
In case you have a good manuscript and you do address all the mentioned concerns and objections from the referees and your reply letter is really well-written and picks up every single objection step by step from the referees, most editors will not even send the revised manuscript plus the reply letter again to the referees, but will directly give you the o.k. to publish.
You have the power to tear down inappropriate and unethical requests from referees via a clever argumentation strategy in the reply letter and by being entirely professional and neutral in the peer-review process.
If the editor then still rejects your work, the journal is just not worth to publish your precious piece of work...
That are the lessons which I have learnt from my academic past...
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
4 answers
Hi,
AI and Robots has got immense opportunities to solve large scale complexities. However, It is rather critical to think about the transparency (ethical practices) in the automation algorithms in sensitive sectors such as health, financial stocks, Automated Cars, etc. For instance, How can one rely on Self driving cars without any doubt, irrespective of its make?? How can we achieve such transparency? Are there any standards implemented to ensure that the automation applications are safe to use??
Relevant answer
Answer
There is a lot of recent work in the area of explainable AI (XAI). Here is some good reading to get you started:
It's definitely an emerging topic, I've been focused on this in my research.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
13 answers
Recently, the editor of an- free of charge- international journal wasted our time. She woke up after 4 months by our inquiry; "how long it takes to provide us with the first feedback". The reviewers, after 3 working days, answered back, and finally rejected our manuscript. It's not the first time that editors and reviewers do so.
The question, not only from them but from other reviewers, is: have you had been intentionally planned to waste our time due to our nationality and affiliations?
I know many weak published papers -even from known universities and not-sanctioned countries- which I wonder why this is published in journals.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would like to share my experience:
Discrimination does exist. Some people who discriminate others do not even aware of it. My family name is not a typical English one, so I know what you are unhappy with.
I think one solution is to make ourselves internationalized. For example:
1. Attend international conferences.
2. Write papers in English. It’s simple: make sure they can read your academic outputs.
3. Quantify your ability and show it online. For example, the H-index, citation, RG score, etc.
4. When writing the content, not only involve the local issues but international ones. I was also invited to review papers, and I personally don’t like the papers focusing too much on local issues, because the conclusions might not apply to other contexts, therefore, the academic value could be limited. I am not saying we cannot conduct studies on our countries; I mean we need to make sure our conclusions are of wider implications. For example, I will not analyse the “Chinese educational policies” (which are very easy to be discriminated), but I will analyse “the test-oriented educational policies: examples in China”. I will also try every possible means to involve participants in other countries to make the results validated.
5. Polish the language. The unauthentic language greatly and negatively influence the editors’ and researchers’ decisions. It’s not easy for non-native speakers. I have been bothered by this for a long time.
Hope you find these helpful.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
6 answers
Hello dear Reserachers, Professors,
I'm asking myself and you, for the effects of Covid-19 on publication, reviewing process, and reclassification of priorioties on certain topics; e.g: and with high probability, the first topic will be all reserches treated this virus and relatid subjects...)
How you see this new shift ?
Best Wishes
Relevant answer
Answer
I think we have to use the time in writing and reviewing. Currently, many of scientsts stay at home and the laboratory load is reduced. This may be a good chance to finish the delayed office works
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
8 answers
Our recent article submitted to a leading Elsevier journal resulted in reject decision. Three of the reviewers' out of four recommended the article after major revision, while one reviewer simply wrote 'reject due to no innovation'. In this case, what could be the review reports of the three reviewers who have recommended for acceptance after revision? Is it scientifically right?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear colleague, this is an interesting question. My experience is that as an editor you also read the article yourself. and even if I am not a specialist in a particular field, it is possible assess the general quality of a paper together with the input from the reviewers. It is therefore possible that even with some positive reviews, the editor decides differently based on his/her own assessment and the support of some other reviews (unfortunately reviewers almost never agree with each other ;-). Of course, just one sentence to reject a paper is insufficient as a proper review, and I think it is legitimate to ask the editor for further legitimation and tips. In the end, as a research community we want to learn from each other and enable each other to improve our research. I wouldn't feel that you ask too much ..Hope this helps
.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
29 answers
This question is based on the following facts (publish or perish):
"Do you feel overwhelmed by the number of research papers in your field?
Do you wonder if you’re missing key ideas that could be critical for your research program? Does it feel like the deluge is only getting worse?
You’re not imagining things. According to research from the University of Ottawa, in 2009 we passed the 50 million mark in terms of the total number of science papers published since 1665, and approximately 2.5 million new scientific papers are published each year.
What’s driving this publication explosion?
At its most basic level, we’ve seen a substantial increase in the total number of academic journals. As of 2014 there were approximately 28,100 active scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Add to this the increasing number of predatory or fake scientific journals, which produce high volumes of poor-quality research, and you have a veritable jungle of journals to wade through.
Another key factor is the sheer number of publishing scientists worldwide, which is increasing at a rate of approximately 4-5% per year. In British Columbia and Alberta alone, we’ve seen the conversion of more than seven colleges to universities in the past decade, and with these changes come new pressures on faculty to publish.
This pressure to “publish or perish”—and the increased competition amongst this growing pool of scientists—has resulted in some researchers becoming what’s termed “salami slicers.”
They divide papers into the least publishable unit in order to lengthen their publication list, increase the chances of being cited, and increase the opportunity to publish in journals with a high impact factor. This further contributes to the volume of papers published."
Relevant answer
Answer
I think and I am sorry to say this is not healthy because all or most of us are scholars or academicians and our universities only related our careers upgrading to publishing the papers and this is in fact very away from the true skills and experiences that we ought to have it and also to just have the required number of published papers that may be low quality ... but only to have the required number only to upgrade ...
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
21 answers
When submitting an article that complements our previous researches, we often face the dilemma of decide how much we should cite our works. Couldn’t the excessive number of self-citations pass a wrong impression for reviewers and editors? In your opinion, what is the limit between the self-citation and the self-promotion?
Relevant answer
Answer
For young scholars, it might be a good practice to promote your work through self-citation but caution should be taken to avoid irrelevant citation because of self promotion.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
12 answers
Does adherence to a good business practices, adherence to ethical and moral principles in business activities be an important factor in the development of effectively developing social market economies?
Please reply
Best wishes
Relevant answer
Is a very good question. And the answer is that NOT necessarily, because the world is upside down and corrupt activities are sometimes greater and more common than ethical practices, and as a consequence corruption, selfishness, the desire for money and other toxic practices manage markets more than ethical practices, that are not necessarily competitive at this time on the planet, unfortunately. I Hope that will change for the better soon.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
3 answers
After manuscript acceptance, a quick publication is desired but some journals take as much as a year before publishing accepted manuscript without providing early view option. This can be frustrating after the arduous review process. What are the ethical options for handling delayed publication of accepted manuscripts?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for your comments and advice
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
24 answers
Normally we are writing abstract and conclusion generally. Specifically I expect what are the information we have to include in the abstract and conclusion in the research articles.
Relevant answer
Answer
The rhetorical structure underlying the abstract encompasses at least five moves some of which are obligatory and some are optional. In the abstract, move one is optional and is used to establish a general background for the topic. Move two introduces the research problem. Move three discusses the methodology required for solving the problem. Move four reports the research findings. Finally, move five, which is also optional, reports the possible implications. Naturally, the conclusion section involves an entirely different rhetorical structure with its own unique moves. The conclusion should report the following :
1) Resrare the research topic and explain why it is important,
2) Breifly summarize main points,
3) interpret the results,
4) Make a logical generalization,
5) Point out implications,
6)Point out limitations ,
7) Provide suggestions for further research
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
20 answers
Many journals asking four peer reviewers details mandatory while submitting research article.
Relevant answer
Answer
Actually by doing so the task of editor become easy but the probability of acceptance of ones paper increases almost to 100 percent.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
2 answers
Dear Researchers,
Recently, I had done a survey regarding the professional requirements and opinions of the folks using survey monkey. I am planning to publish the results. Please let me know whether the IRB/IEC clearence is required for the submission of manuscript for the peer reviews. Please do help me and the study was completely focused on participant's opinion.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would say that any time you plan to collect data from human subjects to publish research you need IRB approval.
But this approval is required BEFORE data is collected, not after.  At least that is how research is done inteh United States.  
After the data is collected, it is too late to consider whether the subjects may be harmed in the process of data collection.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
5 answers
I have been working  in population health related research for last 20 years. Consent taking has been an important part of research. The study participants feel more comfortable to give verbal consent than written. Even a former Vice Chancellor,  study participant of a research' of a University of Nepal said that that he would give 'verbal consent'but not the 'written consent'. On the other hand, many Ethical Review Board make 'written Consent' mandatory. I would like to hear your experiences. 
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you all for your views and experiences. 
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
6 answers
We are planning to conduct a questionnaire-based study among dental students of different dental colleges of Nepal (within a country). Should we obtain ethical clearance from each institution's ethical review board or a clearance from one ethical review board is sufficient? 
Relevant answer
Answer
I think applying for ethical clearance from BPKIHS's ethical board after obtaining consent from other institutions is the way forward.
Thank you for all the inputs. 
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
26 answers
Is obtaining ethical clearance/approval essential/mandatory for case report, report of cases or case series? Must an ethical approval be sought and obtained prior to writing case report or case series?
Relevant answer
Answer
most journals do not ask for ethical approval however patient consent is definitely required. 
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
34 answers
A noticed that some journals adopt double-blind reviews, while some others "single" blind reviews: double-blind reviews imply that both the author and the reviewers are blind, while single-blind reviews imply that reviewers are blind and the author is not.
Despite the limits of "blindness" by itself (it is sometime possible to understand who is the author anyway), I find the double-blind review process more fair.
Why therefore do some journals opt for single-blind reviews (authors are visible to the reviewers)? What's your opinion about it?
Relevant answer
Answer
To me all reviews should be "double non blind" ... It makes no sense to hide who the authors are as well as who the reviewer is. All too often reviewers, taking advantage of anonymity, get away with the most preposterous unilateral comments, having obviously missed the point of the submission and focusing on whether the authors give (over)due recognition to the mullahs of the field. Indeed, this fosters "clan" reviewing penalizing any novel non-conformist ideas that depart from the mainstream's (which is the majority of the reviewers - since you must be part of the mainstream club to be anointed such a reviewer). I say, be openly responsible for your reviews and comments, and live up to this responsibility.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
86 answers
Open Review on RG gives us the freedom to review any publication on RG.  However, so many of us are loaded with work.  I don't have summer holidays nor students to help me write my papers.  So far, I managed to review only 2 papers on RG, that I felt were within my knowledge and I could give some extra input.  Given our commitments and time constraints, how can we make a more active and creative use of the Open Review feature?  
And how can we be helpful to other researchers by providing CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK?
Relevant answer
Answer
Miranda dear, this is precisely the point. The review of articles on RG is really a intreresting exchange of views, but how do you find the time to do it systematically? I also made two revisions and from one of them the idea of an ongoing collaboration with a member of the RG is born. So, I agree with you about the usefulness of the project while having your same problems as long to realize it fully.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
4 answers
Whenever you want to conduct research related with some particular topics such as health or with a sensitive sample (e.g. kids), the previous step is to have an IRB and signed informed consents. Does it also happen with any other behaviour experiment we may want to develop?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Dr. Schulman. While a study that is deemed to be exempt requires much less oversight, my experience is that it still must be presented to the IRB who would make that determination. However, your point is well taken and one I neglected to mention.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
2 answers
The double-blind revision process is a mechanism that in my opinion should be taken into consideration by scientific journals since many times papers are accepted in high impact factor journals not really for the good quality of the work but for the good reputation of the last name. Why does this continue to happen?
Relevant answer
Answer
As noted by Noah Snyder (http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/8898), in the hard sciences one reason for NOT using the double-blind peer review is that the authors very often post the preprint versions of the submiitted papers on the internet (e.g. on arXiv.org), and so the referee can easily establish the authors' identity by running a search by, say, the title of the paper.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
2 answers
The Canadian PRE provides a free online tutuorial and Macquarie University in Australia has a free online course about ethics in research. They are both quite different and targeted to different audiences. Are there other resources that exist (excluding paid courses) for novice or community researchers embarking on the ethical review process.
Relevant answer
Answer
Emma,
I recommend you "On being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research". The last edition I am aware of is published in 2009. You may obtain all versions freely on internet, and have an inside on the evolution of this topic at the National Academies Press.
  • asked a question related to Ethical Review
Question
15 answers
Can someone suggest a mechanism to screen out unauthenticated mushrooming journals and to assist the researchers to publish their works in appropriate journals.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Glenn and Abraham. The trouble I had is not publishing . I have been asked by a journal to review the manuscript. With the good intention, and it was in my specialized area, then I accepted to review it. With all the busy schedule, I reviewed the manuscript and reported that the contents of the abstracts appeared in the same in another article. i have pointed out this to the editor of the journal but they didnt notify it seriously and published the paper. After that only I realized that we have been treated as "fools' and these journals publish our profile and take all the advantages. I have asked the journal to delete myself from the reviewers list. This is also to my fellow researchers that we should not fall in the trap of these cheap, predatory journals.