Étiquette : Research Ethics

Catégories
EN

(De)generative AI and research integrity

Author : Jurij Selan

The phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI) is inherently paradoxical. On one hand, it is generative. This generative quality has benefited contemporary research by enabling researchers to generate ideas and enhance research opportunities while saving time and costs.

On the other hand, the generative nature of AI appears inevitably to lead to antagonism, resulting in entropy through model collapse and becoming degenerative. In this article, we explore the extent to which the implicitly degenerative nature of AI could be regarded as the main long-term threat to research integrity (RI), as many other problems associated with the impact of AI on RI may be seen as its effects.

In the first part, we provide an overview of the impact of AI on RI, including AI ethics, the use of AI in education (AIED), AI as a “grey area” or questionable research practice (QRP), the implementation of principles for AI use in codes of conduct, and the attitudes of academic publishers and universities towards AI. In the second part, we examine how the collapse of generative AI into degenerative AI poses a critical threat to RI in the future.

We emphasise that the only way to prevent the harmful effects of the degenerative nature of AI on RI is to retain the original human-generated datasets as the basis for AI systems and continually add new human-generated datasets.

One of the key principles regarding the impact of AI on RI is therefore the responsibility to ensure that AI remains grounded in human-created reality. This, however, leads us to the sociotechnical perspective on degenerative AI, which we address in the third part, where we evaluate the broader social and moral impact of degenerative AI.

We stress a fundamental shift in human trust requirements towards society and make a plea for more inclusive anticipatory risk management of AI with respect to RI.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-08248-y
Catégories
FR

Des valeurs en science : neutralité ou engagement ?

Auteur/Author : Malik Ghallab

Cette note introduit la controverse sur la nécessaire neutralité du chercheur dans sa pratique scientifique, versus son inévitable engagement éthique et social. Cette controverse ancienne donne lieu aujourd’hui à des ramifications politiques dommageables, révélatrices de tensions sociales et du rôle des sciences dans la société.

Les arguments pour l’engagement ou la neutralité méritent un approfondissement, épistémologique et cognitif. Cette communication tente d’éclairer la controverse et d’ouvrir la réflexion sur le rôle des valeurs en science et leurs liens avec les impératifs d’objectivité.

HAL : https://laas.hal.science/hal-05653297

Catégories
EN

Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity

Authors : M. Ángeles Oviedo-García, René Aquarius, Dorothy V. M. Bishop

Background

Review mills are recognized when individuals generate numerous generic review reports, typically containing suggestions for citations to their own work. Here, we report a network with characteristics of a review mill in the field of gynecological oncology.

Methods

Our search started with a review that contained “boilerplate” comments as well as suggestions that specific PubMed IDs be cited. We searched the internet using Google for review reports using the same boilerplate comments. We coded text to quantify similarities between reviews and compiled citations suggested by reviewers. For comparison, we analyzed 59 reviews of the same articles by other peer reviewers.

Results

We identified a network of 195 review reports that shared boilerplate text from 170 articles. One hundred and eighty-six reports suggested citing articles coauthored by a member of the network. Five members of the network had editorial roles. Authors of 142 articles complied with suggestions for citation. Boilerplate text and citation recommendations were rare in the comparison reports.

Conclusions

Review mills lead to articles being published without proper peer review. This is of particular concern in medical research. Open peer review and transparent reporting of the editors responsible for handling papers will make it easier to detect review mills.

URL : Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2640012

Catégories
EN

A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings

Authors : Brian A. Nosek, David B. Allison, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marcia McNutt, A. Beau Nielsen, Susan M. Wolf

Vigorous debate has erupted over the trustworthiness of scientific research findings in a number of domains. The question “what makes research findings trustworthy?” elicits different answers depending on whether the emphasis is on research integrity and ethics, research methods, transparency, inclusion, assessment and peer review, or scholarly communication. Each provides partial insight.

We offer a systems approach that focuses on whether the research is accountable, evaluable, well-formulated, has been evaluated, controls for bias, reduces error, and whether the claims are warranted by the evidence. We tie each of these components to measurable indicators of trustworthiness for evaluating the research itself, the researchers conducting the research, and the organizations supporting the research.

Our goals are to offer a framework that can be applied across methods, approaches, and disciplines and to foster innovation in development of trustworthiness indicators. Developing valid indicators will improve the conduct and assessment of research and, ultimately, public understanding and trust.

URL : A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536736123

Catégories
EN

A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review

Author : Ingrid Sonya Mawussi Adjovi

This study provides a comprehensive overview of research ethics in science using an approach that combine bibliometric analysis and systematic review. The importance of ethical conduct in scientific research to maintain integrity, credibility, and societal relevance has been highlighted. The findings revealed a growing awareness of ethical issues, as evidenced by the development of numerous guidelines, codes of conduct, and oversight institutions.

However, significant challenges persist, including the lack of standardized approaches for detecting misconduct, limited understanding of the factors contributing to unethical behavior, and unclear definitions of ethical violations. To address these issues, this study recommends promoting transparency and data sharing, enhancing education, and training programs, establishing robust mechanisms to identify and address misconduct, and encouraging collaborative research and open science practices.

This study emphasizes the need for a collaborative approach to restore public confidence in science, protect its positive impact, and effectively address global challenges, while upholding the principles of social responsibility and justice. This comprehensive approach is crucial for maintaining research credibility, conserving resources, and safeguarding both the research participants and the public.

URL : A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1504937

Catégories
EN

More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase

Authors : Paola Buedo, Eugenia Prieto, Jolanta Perek-Białas, Idalina Odziemczyk-
Stawarz, Marcin Waligora

In recent years there have been calls to improve ethics in preclinical research. Promoting ethics in preclinical research should consider the perspectives of scientists. Our study aims to explore researchers’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase.

Using interviews and focus groups, we collected views on ethical issues in preclinical research from experienced (n = 11) and early-stage researchers (ESRs) (n = 14) working in a gene therapy and regenerative medicine consortium. A recurring theme among ESRs was the impact of health-related preclinical research on climate change.

They highlighted the importance of strengthening ethics in relations within the scientific community. Experienced researchers were focused on technicalities of methods used in preclinical research. They stressed the need for more safeguards to protect the sensitive personal data they work with.

Both groups drew attention to the importance of the social context of research and its social impact. They agreed that it is important to be socially responsible – to be aware of and be sensitive to the needs and views of society.

This study helps to identify key ethical challenges and, when combined with more data, can ultimately lead to informed and evidence-based improvements to existing regulations.

URL : More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2294996

Catégories
FR

La crédibilité des matériaux ethnographiques face au mouvement d’ouverture des données de la recherche

Auteur.ices/Authors : Alix Levain, Florence Revelin, Anne-Gaëlle Beurier, Marianne Noël

Les politiques d’ouverture des données de la recherche s’appuient sur des arguments de transparence, d’innovation et de démocratisation des savoirs. Cet article vise à rendre intelligibles leurs implications pour les communautés travaillant à partir de données ethnographiques, confrontées à une transformation des critères de reconnaissance de la crédibilité des savoirs qu’elles produisent.

Alors que les chercheur·e·s qui pratiquent l’ethnographie sont engagé·e·s dans des formes situées de partage des matériaux avec les pair·e·s, les autres disciplines et les « communautés sources », le renforcement du contrôle externe sur les conditions dans lesquelles ce partage s’effectue déstabilise les économies de la crédibilité qui structurent ces pratiques.

Davantage qu’une réticence au processus d’ouverture, le retrait des ethnographes du mouvement apparaît au terme de notre analyse comme résultant à la fois de l’existence d’écologies alternatives des matériaux empiriques et d’une éthique des marges incorporée dans des normes professionnelles souvent implicites.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rac.30291